*» 
o 

H* 
o 

Ph 
W 
EH 
en 
Ph 
Q 

I—! 

M 

OS 
Ph 
O 

K 

o 

•-3 
O 

to 

PA 
W 


WEIGHED  IN  THE  BALANCE 


FOUND    WANTING. 


A  PRESBYTER 


"The  Elders  who  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also 
an  Elder  " — not  a  Pope. — St.  Petee,  the  Apostle. 


€tnrinnatt: 


PRINTED  FOR  THE  AUTHOR. 
1853. 


RECOMMENDATIONS 


Is  the  Pope  supreme  ?  If  any  into  whose  hands 
this  little  volume  may  chance  to  fall,  be  troubled 
with  such  a  notion,  let  them  read  the  brief  but  pun- 
gent argument  drawn,  first,  from  the  holy  Scriptures, 
secondly,  from  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  as  here 
embodied,  and  they  will  probably  be  relieved  in  as 
short  a  time,  and  in  as  pleasant  a  manner,  as  can  be 
obtained  any  where  for  the  same  amount  of  labor 
and  money.  T.  A.  Mobeis. 

Cincinnati,  Nov.  26,  1852. 

I  fully  concur  in  the  foregoing,  as  expressed  by 
Bishop  Morris.  Chaeles  Elliott, 

Editor  Western  Christian  Advocate. 

I  have  looked  over  parts  of  the  book  against  the 
Supremacy  of  the  Pope,  in  manuscript,  and  have 
been  favorably  impressed  with  the  fairness  and 
truth  of  its  arguments  and  statements. 

E.  G.  Robinson. 

Having  read  part  of  the  work  against  the  Suprem- 
acy of  the  Pope,  in  manuscript,  I  would  recommend 
it  as  calculated  to  further  the  cause  of  truth. 

N.  L.  Rice. 


DEDICATION. 

This  little  book  is  most  respectfully 
dedicated  to  the  Rev.  Bishop  Morris, 
the  Rev.  H.  P.  Goodrich,  the  Rev.  N. 
L.  Rice,  the  Rev.  W.  L.  Breckenridge, 
the  Rev.  C.  B.  Parsons,  the  Rev.  Chas. 
Elliott,  the  Rev.  J.  F.  Wright,  and  the 
Rev.  E.  G.  Robinson,  Doctors  in  Divin- 
ity, and  able  defenders  of  the  reformed 
religion,  by  their  obliged 

And  most  obedient  servant, 

The  Author. 
5 


PREFACE 


In  sending  this  little  book  to  the  press, 
the  author  is  not  so  vain  as  to  suppose 
that  it  is  free  from  errors;  so  far  from 
this,  he  is  sensible  of  its  imperfections, 
particularly  so  far  as  the  style  and  ar- 
rangement are  concerned,  which  defects 
he  hopes  will  be  generously  excused,  on 
the  score  of  the  many  embarrassments 
under  which  he  labored  while  preparing 
it  for  publication. 

Still,  he  flatters  himself  that  he  has 
presented  his  readers  with  an  amount 
of  testimony,  disproving  the  pretended 
supremacy  of  the  Pope,  not  often  adduced 
in  support  of  any  questionable  topic  in 
theology. 

The  Church  of  Eome  is  ever  ready  tc 
call  their  fellow-believers  in  Christ,  of 
the  reformed  religion,  heretics  and  im- 
postors; let  them  look  to  it,  that  these 
epithets  do  not   rather  belong  to  them- 

7 


[  8  3 

selves  for  the  deep  injury  which  they 
have  inflicted  on  the  pure  religion  of 
Christ,  by  willfully  corrupting  and  mis- 
translating the  holy  Scriptures,  to  sub- 
serve their  ambitious  designs,  and  to  prop 
up  the  tottering  throne  of  that  greatest 
of  impostors  and  usurpers,  the  Pope  of 
Rome. 

Cincinnati*  November  26,  1852. 


INTRODUCTION 


It  is  unnecessary  to  say  to  those  ao 
quainted  with  the  general  doctrines  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  that  Roman  Catho- 
lics believe  both  in  Scripture  and  oral 
tradition,  as  necessary  to  constitute  a 
rule  of  faith,  while  Protestants  found 
their  religious  belief  on  Scripture  alone, 
as  "able  to  make  wise  unto  salvation," 
independent  of  the  traditions  received 
through  uninspired  men,  many  of  them 
no  better  than  fables,  and  all  of  them 
unsafe  to  be  relied  on  by  us  of  the  pres- 
ent day. 

In  controversy,  it  should  seem  that 
Protestants  would  enjoy  a  decided  ad- 
vantage over  Roman  Catholics,  on  the 
ground  of  holy  Scripture,  which  is  be- 
lieved in  common  by  both  parties;  but 
in  order  that  Protestants  may  gain  noth- 
ing by  this,  Romanists  pronounce  the 
written  word,  or  Bible,  to  be  "a  dead 

9 


[10] 

letter"  and  incapable  of  being  under- 
stood, unless  as  expounded  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
with  the  Pope  at  its  head,  acting  in  his 
capacity  of  Yicar  of  Christ. 

Roman  Catholics,  however,  generally 
admit  that  we  are  at  liberty  to  receive 
holy  Scripture  as  expounded  by  the  holy 
Fathers ;  a  permission  by  which  we  intend 
to  profit  before  we  close  our  inquiries 
concerning  the  oificial  character  or  rank 
of  St.  Peter,  claimed  by  Romanists  as 
their  first  Pope. 

But  to  return  to  the  Popish  subterfuge — 
for  it  deserves  no  milder  name,  being 
chosen  from  motives  of  self-interest,  and 
to  subserve  their  ambitious  designs — that 
" Scripture  is  a  dead  letter"  what  can  be 
more  absurd,  nay,  what  can  be  more 
blasphemous,  than  to  suppose  the  great 
God  of  the  universe  unable,  through  the 
agency  of  inspired  men,  the  chosen  fol- 
lowers and  companions  of  his  Son,  to 
make  his  will  known  to  mankind,  with- 
out the  permission  or  assistance   of  the 


[  11  ] 

uni?ispired  men  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  who  have  the  impudence  to  dic- 
tate terms  to  the  Almighty,  in  the  man- 
ner of  expounding  his  will  to  the  world  ? 

What !  a  revelation  of  the  will  of  God 
subject  to  the  will  of  man  for  its  elucida- 
tion! What  should  we  think  of  an  ab- 
sent friend,  who  should  write  us  a  letter, 
which  required  the  explanation  of  a  third 
party  before  it  could  be  understood  by 
us? 

If  the  principal,  or  head  of  the  depart- 
ment, could  not  manage  to  make  known 
to  his  subordinates,  in  business  or  in  of- 
fice, the  purport  of  his  communication  to 
them,  written  for  this  express  purpose, 
what  consummate  folly  to  suppose  that  a 
third  person,  or  party,  could  better  under- 
stand the  subject-matter  of  such  epistle, 
and  the  mind  of  the  writer,  than  the 
writer  himself!  What  mere  driveling 
would  this  be,  utterly  unworthy  of  the 
least  attention ! 

But  it  is  still  more  absurd  that  the  Al- 
mighty should  not  be  able  to  make  known 


[12] 

his  will  to  men,  without  the  aid  of  the 
self-constituted  and  pretended  infallible 
Church  of  Kome ! 

This  dogma  caps  the  climax  of  folly 
and  impiety,  and  is  of  itself  sufficient  to 
affix  the  unmistakable  seal  of  Antichrist 
to  the  Church  of  Rome. 

While,  as  Protestants,  we  have  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  and  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures on  our  side,  we  have  little  cause  to 
be  alarmed  by  the  Pope,  his  cardinals, 
and  oral  tradition  ;  still,  we  are  called  to 
do  every  thing  in  our  power  to  oppose  the 
spread  of  error,  and  to  lead  men  to  the 
pure  fountain  of  God's  word,  which  is  the 
only  rule  of  faith  to  be  relied  on  by 
man. 

Infallibility  and  oral  tradition,  monks 
and  miracles,  were  current  in  the  dark 
ages ;  but,  if  the  Protestant  Churches  will 
but  do  their  duty,  can  not  much  longer 
pass  for  current  coin. 

The  Pope  will  be  obliged  erelong  not 
only  to  quit  claim  to  the  kingdoms  and 
empires  of  the   world,   but  also  to  the 


[13] 

elusive  government  of  the  Church,  that 
He,  whose  right  it  is,  may  reign  supreme. 
Regardless,  then,  of  the  frowns  or 
smiles  of  Rome,  the  curses  of  Lateran  or 
Trent,  we  propose  to  imitate  the  Bereans, 
and  "  search  the  Scriptures,"  to  see  what 
office  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  conferred  on 
Simon  Peter ;  we  shall  next  examine  the 
records  of  the  holy  Fathers,  and  see  what 
these  venerable  men  may  have  to  say  on 
the  subject.  In  this  inquiry,  truth  is  the 
object  which  we  most  sincerely  seek  for 
ourselves  and  others,  feeling  conscious 
that  this  alone  is  worthy  of  our  pursuit. 


AGAINST 

THE 

SUPREMACY  OF  THE  POPE. 

PART    I. 

It  is  a  rule,  universally  admitted,  we 
believe,  among  theologians,  that  no  im- 
portant doctrine  can  be  established  on 
the  authority  of  a  single  text,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  main  tenor  of  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures. Xow,  if  this  rule  is  admitted  to 
be  a  correct  one,  as  we  believe  will  be 
generally  conceded,  how  much  more  forci- 
bly does  it  apply  when  such  single  or  iso- 
lated text  is  obscure,  or  of  doubtful  im- 
port, or  only  seems  to  give  the  sense  which 
the  contending  disputant  wishes  to  estab- 
lish !  Such,  we  consider,  is  the  position 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  reference  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  supremacy  of  the 
Pope,  which  is  regarded  by  that  Church 
14 


[  15] 

as  the  foundation  of  their  system,  and 
the  souuce  of  their  authority.  They  wish, 
not  on  their  own  account,  or  for  the  satis- 
faction of  the  members  of  their  own  com- 
munion— for  they  can  easily  give  them 
satisfaction,  by  telling  them  that  the 
Church  has  so  decreed — but  they  wish, 
for  the  sake  of  securing  the  favorable 
opinion  of  the  "illogical  Protestants,"  by 
which  they  are  unhappily  surrounded,  to 
find  some  countenance,  at  least,  from 
the  New  Testament,  containing  the  life 
and  doctrines  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
for  the  support  of  so  important  an  office 
as  that  of  Pope  or  Sovereign  Pontiff  of 
the  Christian  Church.  We  propose,  in 
the  following  treatise,  to  try  the  Papacy 
by  the  above  rule,  and  show  up  their 
single  text  for  all  that  it  is  worth. 

Roman  Catholics  lay  claim  to  a  su- 
premacy of  the  Pope,  on  the  plea  that 
Christ  bestowed  this  distinction  upon 
St.  Peter,  who,  in  consequence,  became 
Prince  of  the  apostles  and  Yicar  of  Jesus 
Christ. 


[  16  ] 

The  Scripture  on  which  they  attempt 
to  found  this  claim,  is  that  well-known, 
and,  by  Romanists,  oft-recited  text,  re- 
corded by  St.  Matthew  in  the  16th  chap- 
ter of  the  Gospel  which  bears  his  name : 
"I  say  also  unto  thee,  that  thou  art 
Peter,"  etc. 

On  these  words,  taken  in  connection 
with  the  succeeding  context,  Roman 
Catholics  attempt  to  establish  all  the  ex- 
travagant prerogatives  which  they  claim 
for  the  Pope  of  Rome,  as  successor  of 
Peter,  Yicar  of  Christ,  and  Supreme 
Head  of  the  Church. 

Is  there  the  least  mention  made,  in 
this  memorable  passage,  of  such  extrava- 
gant pretensions  %  Did  our  divine  Lord, 
on  this  or  any  other  occasion,  give  Peter 
reason  to  believe  that  he  was  to  be  a 
prince  or  chief  over  his  fellow-apostles? 
Is  there  the  least  reason  to  believe,  from 
this,  or  any  other  passage  in  the  New 
Testament,  that  Peter  himself  understood' 
it  so,  or  entertained  the  remotest  idea 
that  his  divine  Master  had  made  him  a 


[17] 

lord  over  his  brethren?  Or,  lastly,  is 
there  any  reason  to  believe,  on  the  au- 
thority of  Scripture,  that  the  other  apos- 
tles acknowledged  Peter  as  their  prince 
and  leader — the  living,  visible  represent- 
ative of  their  Master  upon  earth  % 

These  inquiries  must  arise  in  the  mind 
of  every  reflecting  man,  when  he  turns 
his  attention  to  the  Romish  doctrine  of 
the  Pope's  supremacy. 

Jesus  Christ  either  conferred  the  su- 
premacy on  Peter,  including  all  those 
prerogatives  claimed  by  the  Pope,  or  he 
did  not.  If  he  did,  then  is  the  Pope 
what  he  claims  to  be,  "  Yicar  of  Christ," 
and  "another  God  on  earth;"  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  Christ  never  bestowed  such 
supremacy  on  Peter,  then  do  the  claims 
set  up  by  Romanists,  in  behalf  of  the 
Pope,  fall  to  the  ground  ;  for  they  stand 
or  fall  on  the  official  character  conferred 
hy  the  Savior  on  St.  Peter. 

It  will  be  the  object,  therefore,  of  this 
discourse,  to  examine  the  strength  of 
these  claims;   and  in  attempting  to  do 


[  18  ] 

this,  we  shall  confine  our  investigations 
to  the  ISTew  Testament,  and  hope  that 
from  this  divine  source  we  shall  be  able 
to  show  that  Christ  gave  Peter  no  official 
authority  over  the  other  apostles;  that 
Peter  was  wholly  ignorant  that  he  pos- 
sessed any  such  authority ;  that  the  other 
apostles  do  no  where  in  the  Acts  or  Epis- 
tles, allude  to  the  existence  of  such  au- 
thority, or  acknowledge  St.  Peter  as  the 
supreme  Head  of  the  Church — the  cen- 
ter of  unity,  the  judge  of  controversy,  and 
guide  to  Christians  in  their  search  after 
truth,  and  that,  consequently,  the  proud 
claims  of  the  Roman  Church  are  without 
foundation  in  Scripture — empty  assump- 
tions, alike  repugnant  to  Scrfpture  and 
reason. 

In  a  pulpit  oration  on  this  subject,  a 
Roman  priest  would  not  fail  to  hold  up 
St.  Peter  as  the  Prince  of  apostles,  and 
Yicar  of  Christ  upon  earth.  He  would 
tell  his  hearers  much  about  his  keys, 
and  his  power  of  binding  and  loosing, 
etc.     "We  shall,  therefore,  briefly  notice 


[  19  J 

this  discourse  of  our  Lord  with  St.  Peter, 
already  alluded  to,  as  we  find  it  given  by 
St.  Matthew: 

"  When  Jesus  came  into  the  coasts  of 
Cesarea  Philippi,  he  asked  his  disciples, 
saying,  Whom  do  men  say  that  I  the  Son 
of  man  am  ? 

And  they  said,  Some  say  that  thou  art 
John  the  Baptist ;  some,  Elias ;  and 
others,  Jeremias,  or  one  of  the  prophets. 

He  saith  unto  them,  But  whom  say  ye 
that  I  am  ?  And  Simon  Peter  answered 
and  said : 

Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God.  And  Jesus  answered  and 
said  unto  him,  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon 
Barjona:  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not 
revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven. 

And  I  say  also  unto  thee,  that  thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church :  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it. 

And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven :  and  whatsoever 


[20] 

thou  shalt  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound 
in  heaven:  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
loose  on  earth,  shalt  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

A  good  reason  may  be  assigned  why 
Roman  Catholics  lay  so  much  stress  upon 
this  language  of  Christ  to  Peter ;  namely, 
because  it  is  the  only  passage  in  the  New 
Testament  which  can  be  pressed,  by  any 
construction  whatever,  to  aid  them  in  es- 
tablishing the  supremacy  of  St.  Peter,  on 
which  must  stand  or  fall  their  claims  for 
his  pretended  successors,  the  Popes  of 
Rome. 

The  word  Petros,  here  given  by  oui 
Lord  to  Simon,  the  son  of  Jona,  in  the 
Greek  language,  signifies,  as  every  one 
acquainted  with  that  tongue  well  knows, 
a  stone ;  and  had  it  been  the  intention  of 
the  Savior  to  have  built  his  Church  on  the 
person  of  Peter,  that  is,  Petros,  he  would 
doubtless  have  used  the  dative  case  of 
the  noun  Petros,  instead  of  employing 
another  word,  as  he  has  done.  It  would 
then  have  read  epi  to  Petro — upon  this 
Peter  or  stone,  etc. — but  the  Savior  used 


[21] 

another  word,  Petra,  which  always  means 
a  rock  or  foundation,  and  seems  to  have 
been  selected  here  by  our  Lord  to  mark 
a  distinction  between  Simon,  whom  he 
calls  Petros,  or  a  stone,  probably  on  ac- 
count of  the  strength  and  boldness  of  his 
character;  while,  as  if  expressly  to  pre- 
vent the  error  into  which  Romanists  have 
fallen,  in  unfolding  the  meaning  of  this 
text,  he  makes  choice  of  the  word  Petra, 
to  show  that  it  was  not  upon  Peter,  but 
upon  that  great  fundamental  article  of  the 
Christian  religion  revealed  by  the  al- 
mighty Father  to  Simon  Peter,  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God. 

This  great  truth  is  the  foundation  of 
Christianity,  around  which  all  other  truths 
cluster,  and  on  which  they  all  depend. 

In  consequence  of  having  received  this 
divine  revelation,  Christ  pronounces  Peter 
blessed,  or  happy :  u  Blessed  art  thou,  Si- 
mon Bar-jona :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath 
not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven." 


[  22  ] 

Simon,  the  son  of  Jona,  is  not  at  pres- 
ent the  leading  topic  of  this  discourse 
between  our  Lord  and  his  apostle,  but  the 
grand  discovery  of  the  character  of  Christ 
made  by  the  Father  to  him.  This  truth, 
then,  was  evidently  that  which  gave  prom- 
inence to  this  apostle,  and  induced  the 
Savior  to  give  him  the  surname  of  Petros, 
or  Peter,  a  stone,  while  he  uses  Petra, 
another  word,  to  signify  his  divine  Son- 
ship,  the  rock  or  foundation  on  which  the 
Christian  Church  rests  for  support. 

It  must  appear  evident  to  every  one 
who  reflects  on  this  distinction  of  words, 
employed  by  our  Lord,  that  he  must  have 
intended  to  express  two  distinct  things, 
namely :  First.  The  one  great  foundation 
of  the  Christian  religion;  and,  Second. 
The  personal  distinction  conferred  upon 
St.  Peter. 

If  the  words  Petros  and  Petra  were 
used  convertibly  in  the  New  Testament, 
whenever  St.  Peter  is  mentioned,  then 
should  we  not  press  this  point,  or  further 
contend  for  the  distinction  of  terms  or 


[23  ] 

names  observed  by  our  Lord ;  but  since 
we  find  Petros  constantly  used,  in  other 
portions  of  the  New  Testament,  whenever 
Simon  Peter  is  referred  to,  and  Petra, 
whenever  the  Savior  is  spoken  of  as  the 
foundation  of  the  Church,  we  most  ra- 
tionally arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  this 
observance  of  different  names  was  em- 
ployed to  prevent  the  possibility  of  falling 
into  the  error  which  Roman  Catholics 
have  adopted. 

If  it  should  be  urged  that  Simon  Peter 
is  sometimes  called  Cephas,  or  Kephas — 
a  word  borrowed  from  the  Syriac  lan- 
guage— in  various  parts  of  the  New  Test- 
ament, we  are  not  aware  that  this  remark 
would  amount  to  an  objection,  or  affect, 
in  the  slightest  degree,  our  foregoing  ar- 
gument; for,  even  admitting  that  Petros 
and  Petra,  in  classic  Greek,  are  some- 
times used  reciprocally  to  denote  either  a 
rock  or  stone,  yet  since  they  are  constantly 
used  in  a  restricted  sense  in  the  New  Test- 
ament, Petros  referring  constantly  to  Si- 
mon Peter,  the  apostle,  and  Petra,  when 


[24] 

figuratively  used,  to  Iris  master,  Jesus 
Christ,  our  point  is  made  out. 

It  is  truly  unfortunate  for  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  supremacy  of 
Peter,  that  it  is  so  little  noticed,  or  rather 
so  entirely  omitted  in  all  parts  of  the  New 
Testament;  and  that  they  are  driven  by 
necessity  to  build  so  vast  a  superstruct- 
ure, on  so  slender  a  foundation  as  a 
single  text  can  afford  them,  while  a  great 
number  of  passages  from  the  same  book 
go  to  show,  in  the  most  conclusive  man- 
ner, that  these  claims,  urged  in  behalf  of 
Peter,  are  unfounded  and  utterly  destitute 
of  proof. 

To  establish  the  Christian  Church  on 
St.  Peter,  would  be  to  build  it  upon  the 
merits  of  a  man,  and  would  subvert  the 
great  scheme  of  man's  redemption,  giving 
glory,  not  "  to  God  in  the  highest,"  but  to 
poor,  frail  humanity. 

Christ  is  every-where,  in  Scripture, 
spoken  of  as  the  foundation  of  the  Chris- 
tian's hope;  and  the  very  word  Petra, 
which  we  have  noticed,  is  used  with  strict 


[25] 

application  to  him,  and  not  to  Peter  or 
any  one  else. 

That  Christ  is  frequently  represented 
in  the  holy  Scriptures  as  a  rock,  is  be- 
yond dispute.  In  his  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  St.  Paul  uses  the  term  rock 
in  reference  to  Christ:  "Moreover,  breth- 
ren, I  would  not  that  ye  should  be  igno- 
rant how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under 
the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea ; 

And  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in 
the  cloud  and  in  the  sea; 

And  did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat, 
and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink : 
for  they  drank  of  that  spiritual  rock  \_Pe- 
bra~\  that  followed  them;  and  that  rock 
was  Christ." 

Again :  Christ  is  called  the  "  chief 
corner-stone,  elect  precious;"  and  the 
apostle  adds,  "  other  foundation  can  no 
man  lay" 

The  substance  of  this  passage  seems 
to  amount  simply  to  this,  and  no  more; 
namely,  that  as  Peter  was  the  first 
among  the  apostles,  who   acknowledged 


[26  ] 

the  divine  character  and  mission  of  his 
master,  so  Christ  was  pleased,  also,  to 
honor  Peter,  in  consequence  of  this  noble 
confession  of  the  Christian  faith,  by  mak- 
ing him  the  instrument  in  building  np  his 
infant  Church  in  the  world ;  by  being  the 
first  preacher  of  the  Gospel,  both  to  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  and  by  assuring  him  that 
against  the  Church  which  he  should  found 
the  gates  of  hell  should  never  prevail; 
that  is,  the  malice  of  the  devil,  or  the  op- 
position which  he  might  stir  up,  would 
never  overthrow  the  Christian  religion  in 
the  world. 

In  accordance  with  this  promise,  Peter 
was  the  first  to  preach  to  the  Jews,  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  by  which  about 
three  thousand  souls  were  converted  to 
the  faith  of  Christ.  The  same  honored 
apostle  first  opened  the  door  of  Gospel 
grace  to  the  Gentiles,  by  preaching  Christ 
to  the  family  of  Cornelius,  the  Centurion. 

Thus  was  the  promise  of  Christ  liter- 
ally fulfilled,  and  the  Christian  Church 
established  by  Peter,  or  on   that  faith 


[27] 

which  he  professed,  of  which  God  was 
the  author.  And  to  this  transaction  Pe- 
ter called  the  attention  of  the  first  general 
council,  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles. 

"  And  when  there  had  been  much  dis- 
puting, [in  this  council,]  Peter  rose  up, 
And  said  unto  them,  Men  and  brethren, 
ye  know  that  a  good  while  ago  God  made 
choice  amongst  us,  that  the  Gentiles,  by 
my  mouth,  should  hear  the  word  of  the 
Gospel  and  believe." 

But  having  done  so,  does  Peter  pro- 
ceed to  remind  the  council  of  the  apos- 
tles, that  he  was  appointed  by  their  com- 
mon master  supreme  judge  of  all  religious 
controversies  in  the  Church?  Nothing  of 
the  kind :  he  evidently  pretends  to  no 
pre-eminence  of  rank  over  the  other  apos- 
tles and  elders  there  present;  he  simply 
relates  what  had  been  the  order  of  God's 
appointment,  in  making  him  an  instru- 
ment in  bringing  the  Gentiles  within  the 
pale  of  the  Christian  Church,  but  tells 
us  nothing  about  his  princely  character 


[  28  ] 

and  infallibility,  for  which  his  pretended 
successors  have  since  so  strongly  con- 
tended. 

As  it  was  not  our  purpose,  on  this  oc- 
casion, to  go  into  an  extended  inquiry 
respecting  the  meaning  of  the  word 
Church,  and  its  distinctive  marks  and 
characteristics,  on  which  so  much  has 
already  been  said,  and  frequently  to  so 
little  purpose,  we  shall  proceed  to  notice 
that  the  various  passages  bearing  on  the 
point  under  discussion,  in  the  New  Test- 
ament, clearly  prove  that  those  powers 
which  Roman  Catholics  claim  for  the 
Pope  were  never  conferred  on  St.  Peter. 

In  a  short  time  after  the  transaction 
mentioned  by  St.  Matthew,  already  so 
fully  quoted  and  commented  on,  occurred, 
the  same  evangelist  tells  us  that  the 
mother  of  Zebedee's  children  came  with 
her  two  sons  to  worship  the  Savior,  and 
requested  that  they  might  sit,  one  on 
liis  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  his  left, 
in  his  kingdom.  And  when  the  ten  heard 
it  —  Peter   with   the   rest  —  "they  were 


[  29  ] 

moved  with  indignation  against  the  two 
brethren. 

But  Jesus  called  them  unto  him,  and 
said,  Ye  know  that  the  princes  of  the 
Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over  them, 
and  they  that  are  great  exercise  authority 
upon  them. 

But  it  shall  not  be  so  among  you :  but 
whosoever  will  be  great  among  you,  let 
him  be  your  minister.  And  whosoever 
will  be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your 
servant."  Had  Peter  understood  our 
Lord  at  the  time  he  gave  him  the  name 
of  Peter,  or  stone,  to  have  given  him  a 
princely  rank  and  supremacy  over  the 
other  apostles,  he,  at  least,  could  have 
had  no  cause  for  indignation  against  the 
two  sons  of  Zebedee.  From  this  single 
instance,  therefore,  it  must  be  evident 
that,  admitting  our  Lord  to  have  consti- 
tuted St.  Peter  his  Vicar,  or  deputy  on 
earth,  and  prince  or  chief  of  the  apostles, 
Peter  himself  remained  ignorant  of  his 
high  rank,  and  the  prerogatives  which  re- 
sulted from  it.     Nay,  more :  from  the 


[  30  ] 

comment  which  our  Lord  made  upon 
their  jealousy  or  indignation  against  the 
two  sons  of  Zebedee,  it  is  evident  that  he 
never  designed  to  confer  any  pre-emi- 
nence of  order  or  rank  upon  Peter  above 
the  other  apostles. 

On  another  occasion,  he  addressed  this 
striking  language  to  his  apostles,  in  which 
it  would  seem  that  he  anticipated  the 
noise  which  would  be  made  about  this 
princely  dignity  and  pre-eminence  of 
Peter  in  after  years. 

"0?ie  is  your  master,  even  Christ,  and 

ALL  YE  ARE  BRETHREN,"  that  is,  equal  / 

for  the  sons  of  one  common  father  are  of 
the  same  rank  and  dignity,  and  entitled 
to  equal  privileges. 

The  very  thing  which  Romanists  so 
strenuously  contend  for,  is  that  which 
Christ  so  severely  condemns  in  the  Gos- 
pel; namely,  pre-eminence  among  the 
apostles. 

But  to  return  again  to  the  first  general 
council,  mentioned  in  the  15th  chapter  of 
Acts,  there  is  not  one  word,  or  so  much 


[31  ] 

as  a  single  hint,  of  Peter  having  presided 
on  that  occasion,  but  the  strongest  indi- 
cation that  James  presided  in  that  assem- 
bly, although  Peter  was  present. 

Peter  merely  called  the  attention  of  the 
apostles  and  elders,  there  present,  to  the 
fact  that  he  was  chosen  by  the  order  of 
divine  Providence  to  make  known  the 
Gospel  to  the  Gentiles;  and  notices  the 
spiritual  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  bestowed 
on  them,  which  he  regarded  as  a  proof 
that  God  had  put  no  difference  between 
them  and  the  Jews ;  and  that  they,  the 
Gentiles,  were  equally  eligible  to  Gospel 
privileges  with  the  Jews. 

low,  mark  what  follows :  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  missionaries  to  the  Gentiles, 
next  address  the  assembly,  giving  an 
account  of  the  miracles  which  God 
had  wrought  among  the  Gentiles  by 
them. 

At  the  close  of  these  deliberations,  St. 

James  proceeds  to  sum  up,  and  delivers 

his  judgment,   carrying   upon   the   very 

face  of  it  the  strongest  possible  proof  that 

3 


[  32  ] 

lie  was  moderator,  or  president  of  the 
council. 

"Wherefore  my  sentence,"  or  decision, 
"is,  that  we  trouble  not  them,  wThich 
from  among  the  Gentiles  are  turned  unto 
God,"  etc. 

There  is  a  slight  verbal  difference  be- 
tween the  term  "my  sentence,"  as  ren- 
dered in  our  English  Bibles,  and  the  orig- 
inal Greek,  which  I  beg  leave  to  notice 
in  this  place,  which  stands,  in  the  Greek, 
thus :  "Dice  Jcrino  " — "  Therefore  I  judge," 
or  decide,  with  which  the  Latin  version 
literally  agrees :  "  Idio  ego  judico " — 
"Therefore  I  judge,"  or  decide  as  a 
judge.  What  can  be  desired  more 
clearly  to  establish  the  fact  that  James, 
and  not  Peter,  presided  in  this  assembly  ? 

James  hears,  sums  up  and  decides,  or 
gives  the  final  sentence,  and  this  is  forth- 
with adopted  by  the  council  as  their  act. 

How  Eomanists  can  pretend  that  Peter 
presided  in  this  council,  is  truly  matter 
of  astonishment.  He  never  attempted  to 
do  so.     He  speaks  as  one  who  had  a 


[  33  ] 

place  on  the  floor,  and  not  as  might  have 
been  expected  from  him  who  filled  the 
chair. 

In  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  a  circumstance  occurs  which 
incidentally  proves  that  Peter  possessed 
no  authority  or  pre-eminence  over  the 
other  apostles  of  Christ. 

At  the  fourteenth  verse  of  this  chapter 
we  read  as  follows:  "Now,  when  the 
apostles  which  were  at  Jerusalem  heard 
that  Samaria  had  received  the  word  of 
God,  they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and 
John."  As  the  less  is  ever  blessed  by  the 
greater,  so,  in  like  manner,  is  the  less  sent 
by  the  greater.  Kings  and  presidents 
send  their  embassadors  and  ministers  to 
foreign  courts  and  states,  and  the  Pope 
sends  his  legate,  or  representative.  But 
who,  I  ask,  ever  heard  of  the  embassador 
sending  the  king  or  president?  This 
would  be  to  invert  the  order  of  things. 

And  yet  it  would  be  as  reasonable  as 
for  the  bishops  or  cardinals  to  send  the 
Pope  on  an  embassy  or  missionary  tour. 


[34] 

And,  truly,  if  the  apostles  had  authority 
to  send  the  Pope  out  as  a  missionary,  so 
have  the  bishops  at  the  present  day ;  and 
the  sooner  they  proceed  to  do  so,  the  more 
tender  will  they  show  themselves  toward 
his  present  Holiness,  who,  though  he  does 
not  possess  talents  to  govern  at  home, 
might,  like  Peter,  be  sent  on  a  tour  of 
missionary  labor  to  great  advantage. 

The  sending  of  Peter  by  the  apostles  at 
Jerusalem,  here  mentioned,  is  utterly  at 
variance  with  his  supremacy. 

The  commander-in-chief  of  an  army,  or 
any  senior  officer,  may  command  his  jun- 
ior, and  inferior  in  rank ;  but  it  would  be 
folly  to  talk  of  the  inferior,  or  junior  offi- 
cer, sending  the  superior  upon  any  service 
whatever;  the  thing  is  utterly  preposter- 
ous, and  inadmissible  in  any  view  of  the 
subject. 

The  true  situation  of  the  apostles  seems 
to  have  been  that  of  the  most  perfect 
equality,  a  body  of  Christian  pastors,  all 
equally  concerned  in  taking  care  of  the 
infant   Church    of  the    Redeemer,   over 


[  35  ] 

which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them 
overseers ;  and  to  the  furtherance  of  this 
object,  all  their  exertions  were  directed. 

Being  thus  equal  in  rank  and  minis- 
terial authority,  they  united  for  the  bene- 
fit of  counsel,  and  were  pleased  to  depute 
two  of  their  number — Peter  and  John — 
to  go  to  the  Samaritans,  to  instruct  them 
more  fully  in  the  great  doctrines  and  du- 
ties of  the  Christian  religion. 

And  notwithstanding  each  of  the  apos- 
tles was  infallible  in  his  own  person,  yet 
this  did  not  prevent  them  from  assembling 
together,  to  consult  respecting  the  best  in- 
terests of  the  Church.  Such  was  the  first 
apostolic  council  of  which  we  have  been 
speaking. 

"Then  pleased  it  the  apostles  and  elders 
with  the  whole  Church"  etc.  And  their 
letter  was  written  to  the  Church  in  Anti- 
och,  in  the  name  and  behalf  of  "the 
apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren." 

How  widely  does  this  apostolic  prac- 
tice differ  from  that  adopted  in  later 
times  by  the  Church  of  Rome  I 


[36] 

Roman  Catholic  bishops  are  now  so 
modest  that,  individually,  tliey  utterly 
disclaim  infallibility,  although  they 
claim  it  when  met  together  in  general 
council. 

That  this  was  the  primitive  order  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  is  manifest  from 
the  foregoing  considerations;  for  had 
Peter  been  invested  with  this  Popish  su- 
premacy, which  Roman  Catholics  claim 
for  him,  how  is  it  to  be  accounted  for, 
that  he  should  have  remained  ignorant 
of  this  himself?  Men  are  not  wont  to 
overlook  their  own  dignity,  or  refuse  to 
magnify  their  office,  by  not  assuming  the 
authority  which  their  commission  confers 
upon  them. 

Nay,  more:  in  this  instance  it  would 
doubtless  have  been  a  gross  dereliction 
of  duty  in  St.  Peter,  on  the  Roman  view 
of  the  dogma  of  the  supremacy,  to  have 
refused,  or  to  have  neglected  to  carry  out. 
every  thing  appertaining  to  this  suprem- 
acy, since,  on  the  performance  of  these 
duties,    the    fulfillment    of    the    Divine 


[37] 

promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  suspended. 
But  poor  Peter  was  absolutely  in  the 
dark — in  perfect  ignorance  on  all  these 
important  points. 

!Not  only  did  he  know  absolutely  noth- 
ing of  his  proper  titles,  as  "  His  Holi- 
ness," "  The  most  holy  Father,"  "  The  sa- 
cred Pontiff,"  "  Our  Lord  God,  the  Pope," 
etc.,  but  he  was  also  ignorant  of  the  Pa- 
pal duties  and  prerogatives. 

We  have  two  epistles  in  the  ISTew  Test- 
ament written  by  St.  Peter;  but  not  a 
single  word  in  either  of  them  about  his 
own  dignity  or  office:  insomuch,  that  it 
is  extremely  difficult  to  persuade  one's 
self  that  he  is  reading  an  encyclical  let- 
ter from  the  Pope — a  thing  of  which  no 
one  can  be  ignorant,  at  the  present  time, 
when  he  sits  down  to  the  perusal  of  such 
an  august  document,  whether  dated  at 
Naples  or  Rome. 

"  Peter,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,"  is 
the  modest,  unassuming  style  in  which  he 
commences  his  first  general  epistle.  He 
exhorts  all  classes  in  society,  and  among 


[  38  ] 

the  rest  the  clergy,  the  elders,  or  presby- 
ters, which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who 
am  also  an  elder. 

How  very  different  is  this  language  of 
Peter  from  that  of  the  Pope  of  Rome, 
who  is  in  the  habit  of  recurring  occasion- 
ally, in  his  epistles,  to  the  time  when  he 
was  personally  and  actively  employed  in 
the  " apostolic  ministry/"  The  Pope, 
by  being  elevated  to  the  chair  of  St.  Pe- 
ter, regards  himself  as  raised  above  the 
apostolio  ministry.  Peter,  poor  man, 
never  thought  of  any  such  thing,  but  is 
himself  "also  an  elder,"  or  presbyter — 
simply  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ.  Ver- 
ily, the  times  have  greatly  changed  since 
Peter  lived,  and  preached,  and  wrote 
epistles  to  the  Churches. 

But  go  on,  says  our  Eoman  Catholic 
friend.  Perhaps  something  more  clearly 
descriptive  of  the  office  and  powers  of 
the  Pope  may  be  found  in  his  second 
epistle.     How  does  it  begin? 

"  Simon  Peter,  a  servant  and  an  apostle 
of  Jesus  Christ."     Thus  it  begins;   and 


[39  ] 

had  we  leisure  to  recite  every  succeeding 
word  of  the  entire  epistle,  we  should  find 
as  little  to  support  the  pretensions  of 
the  Papacy,  as  meets  our  eye  in  the  first 
verse. 

It  is  certain  that  the  New  Testament  is 
not  the  source  whence  to  derive  testimony 
for  the  support  of  the  extravagant  pow- 
ers which  Romanists  claim  for  St.  Peter ; 
for,  admitting  him  to  have  possessed  the 
powers  ascribed  to  him  by  the  Roman 
Church,  it  is  evident  that  neither  in  coun- 
cils, nor  in  his  epistles,  does  he  give  us 
the  least  reason  to  believe  that  he  was 
himself  conscicnis  of  possessing  such  au- 
thority— certain  it  is,  that  he  no  where 
lays  the  slightest  claim  to  it,  nor  do  the 
apostles  pay  the  least  attention  to  the 
supremacy  of  Peter. 

The  general  epistle  of  St.  James,  and 
many  of  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  discover 
much  more  of  widely-extended  episcopal 
authority.  St.  Paul  lays  down  canons  to 
be  observed  by  bishops,  presbyters,  and 
deacons ;    while    St.   Peter  says    almost 


[40] 

nothing  on  the  subject:  and  in  the  first 
general  council  of  the  Church,  held  at 
Jerusalem,  James  and  not  Peter  presided, 
as  has  already  been  shown;  and  when, 
the  apostolic  college  assembled,  to  take 
into  consideration  the  state  of  the  new 
converts  to  Christianity  in  Samaria,  "  they 
sent  Peter  and  John  "  on  this  important 
mission,  thereby  showing  most  conclu- 
sively, as  already  remarked,  the  authority 
they  had  over  Peter ',  as  well  as  every  other 
individual  of  their  order — an  authority 
which  belonged  to  no  one  person,  or  indi- 
vidual, whether  Peter,  James,  or  John, 
but  resided  in  the  body  or  general  assem- 
bly of  the  Church  for  the  benefit  of  all 
its  members. 

Widely  different  were  the  external  cir- 
cumstances of  St.  Peter  and  his  pretended 
successors  in  office.  Peter,  while  with- 
out a  house  of  his  own,  lodged  with  "  one 
Simon,  a  tanner,"  while  Pius  IX,  in  his- 
exile,  lodged  with  one  tyrant,  the  King 
of  Naples.  The  first  lived  in  a  hut  by 
the  seaside ;  the  other  in  royal  palaces  of 


[41  ] 

princes :  but  I  am  aware  that  we  shall  be 
told  here,  that  things  are  greatly  changed 
since  the  primitive  age  of  the  Christian 
Church.  This  I  readily  admit,  but  I  fear 
they  are  very  little  improved. 

It  may  be  still  further  contended,  that 
St.  Peter's  early  circumstances  and  posi- 
tion in  life,  would  necessarily  preclude 
the  external  appendages  of  rank  and 
power,  generally  attendant  upon  exalted 
stations. 

Certain  it  is,  the  poor  old  fisherman 
cared  little  for  the  pomp  and  parade  of 
life;  he  seems  to  have  been  as  destitute 
of  the  disposition,  as  of  the  means  of 
playing  the  prince  or  monarch — possibly 
he  may  have  occasionally  reflected  on 
that  expression  of  his  divine  Master, 
"  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world ;"  and 
that  it  is  enough  for  the  servant  that  he 
be  as  his  master.  Above  all,  he  doubt- 
less bore  in  mind  the  sharp,  but  justly- 
merited  rebuke,  which  he  and  his  fellow- 
apostles  received  from  their  Master,  on 
the  subject  of  aspiring  to  pre-eminence 


[42] 

above  one  another.  "All  ye  are  breth- 
ren," were  words  which  often  sounded  in 
his  ears,  and  admonished  him  of  his  for- 
mer delinquency. 

But  let  us  see  in  what  light  Paul  re- 
garded Peter. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  he  refers  to  his  own  conversion 
to  the  Christian  faith,  and  his  subsequent 
course  of  conduct. 

He  tells  us  that  he  "  conferred  not  with 
flesh  and  blood,"  neither  did  he  go  up  to 
Jerusalem  to  those  who  were  apostles  be- 
fore him;  but  immediately  addressed 
himself  to  the  work  of  preaching  the 
Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  to  whom  he  was 
specially  sent  by  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church. 

He  speaks  of  the  Gospel  of  the  circum- 
cision having  been  committed  to  Peter, 
even  as  the  mission  to  the  Gentiles  had 
been  given  to  him;  but  not  a  solitary 
remark  escapes  him  on  the  subject  of  the 
supremacy  of  Peter. 

St.    Paul    mentions    another    circum- 


[43] 

stance,  in  connection  with  the  history 
and  career  of  Peter,  which  will  further 
tend  to  show  that  Paul  knew  nothing 
about  the  supremacy  of  that  apostle,  but 
regarded  him  simply  as  a  fellow-apostle 
of  the  same  dignity  with  himself. 

"  But  when  Peter  was  come  to  Anti- 
och,"  he  tells  the  Galatians,  "I  with- 
stood him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to 
be  blamed. 

For  before  that  certain  came  from 
James,  he  did  eat  with  the  Gentiles; 
but  when  they  were  come  he  withdrew, 
and  separated  himself,  fearing  them 
which  were  of  the  circumcision. 

And  the  other  Jews  dissembled  like- 
wise with  him ;  insomuch  that  Barnabas 
was  carried  away  with  their  dissimulation. 

But  when  I  saw  that  they  walked  not 
uprightly,  according  to  the  truth  of  the 
Gospel,  I  said  unto  Peter  before  them  all, 
If  thou,  being  a  Jew,  livest  after  the 
manner  of  Gentiles,  and  not  as  do  the 
Jews,  why  compellest  thou  the  Gentiles 
to  live  as  do  the  Jews  ?" 


[44] 

Here  we  find  a  mode  of  proceeding 
every  way  at  variance  with  the  Roman 
dogma  concerning  the  infallibility  of  St. 
Peter ;  for  had  Peter  been  really  prince 
of  the  apostles,  and  supreme  head  of  the 
Church,  why  should  he  stand  in  fear 
either  of  James  or  any  other  Jewish  con- 
vert at  Jerusalem?  The  commander-in- 
chief  does  not  usually  stand  in  fear  of  his 
subordinates  in  rank,  nor  do  inferiors  in 
despotic  governments  call  superiors  to 
account  for  their  conduct;  but  St.  Paul 
tells  us  that  he  withstood  Peter  to  the 
face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed.  Pe- 
ter, then,  was  not  above  blame,  notwith- 
standing his  pretended  successors  can 
not  err. 

But  the  apostle  St.  Paul  is  too  import- 
ant a  witness  for  the  Protestant  cause, 
against  the  pretended  claims  of  the  Pa- 
pacy, to  be  dismissed  after  such  an  exam- 
ination ;  for,  although  it  has  already  been 
pretty  full,  and  to  our  purpose,  he  can 
testify  still  more  fully  against  the  suprem- 
acy of  Peter. 


[«] 

This  illustrious  apostle  has  written  more 
than  all  the  other  epistolary  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  being  profoundly 
learned  and  equally  inspired  with  his  fel- 
low-apostles, must  have  had  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  Christian  Church,  and 
its  form  of  government  and  officers ;  yet 
in  none  of  his  epistles  does  he  allude  to 
the  supremacy  of  Peter. 

He  no  where  acknowledges  him  as  a 
superior;  and  yet  it  is  this  apostle  who 
teaches  us  to  render  honor  to  whom  honor 
is  due :  but  his  language  is,  "  For  I  sup- 
pose I  was  not  behind  the  very  chief  est 
apostles"  And,  again:  as  if  the'  mode 
of  expressing  his  disapprobation  of  this 
arrogant  assumption  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
supremacy,  which  as  a  prophet  he  fore- 
saw would  be  put  forth  in  after  ages,  had 
not  been  sufficiently  clear,  he  adds,  ^For 
in  nothing  am  I  hehind  the  very  chief  est 
apostles,  though  I  be  nothing." 

But  had  Peter  really  possessed  the 
power  and  official  authority  claimed  at 
the  present  time  by  the  Pope  of  Rome, 


[46  ] 

by  using  such  language,  Paul  must  have 
been  guilty  of  heresy  and  falsehood. 

Again,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians : 
"When  James,  Cephas,  and  John,  who 
seemed  to  be  pillars"  etc.  Note  here  the 
language  of  the  great  apostle,  in  reference 
to  James,  Peter,  and  John;  James  is 
placed  before  Peter,  who,  with  James 
and  John,  only  appeared  or  seemed  to  be 
pillars. 

Where  a  modern  Koman  Catholic 
bishop  sees  a  Pope,  Paul  only  saw  an 
apostle,  who  seemed  to  be  a  pillar,  or 
prominent  man  in  the  Church,  but  who, 
after  all,  he  regarded  in  no  respect  as 
superior  to  himself. 

St.  Paul,  in  various  parts  of  his  epis- 
tles, condemns  heresies  and  divisions  in 
the  Church  :  but  strange  to  say,  he  never 
once  refers  the  parties  offending  to  the 
arbitration  of  Peter,  as  sitting,  by  Divine 
appointment,  in  that  tribunal,  expressly 
established  for  the  final  settlement  of 
such  matters. 

Strange,  that   while   St.  Paul   so  fre- 


[47] 

quently  mentions  heresies  and  divisions 
in  the  primitive  Church,  he  should  say 
nothing  of  the  great  center  of  imity,  the 
chair  of  St.  Peter,  on  which  volumes  have 
since  been  written. 

Most  of  all  is  it  to  be  wondered  at,  that 
he  should  have  said  nothing  of  this  chair 
and  its  occupant,  the  "  blessed  St.  Peter," 
while  writing  to  the  Romans ;  this  omis- 
sion is  truly  astonishing,  whether  Peter 
was  then  at  Rome  or  not,  since  in  either 
case,  according  to  the  doctrines  of  Roman- 
ists, he  was  Yicar  of  Christ  and  sovereign 
Pontiff. 

There  is  more,  far  more,  and  stronger 
proof,  in  the  New  Testament,  of  the  su- 
premacy of  Paul  than  can  be  produced 
in  support  of  such  claim  in  behalf  of 
Peter. 

There  is  no  direct  proof  that  Peter  was 
ever  at  Rome,  much  less  that  he  was 
bishop  of  that  city;  while  there  is  the 
clearest  proof  that  St.  Paul  actually  re- 
sided at  Rome,  in  his  own  hired  house, 
and  instructed  all  who  came  to  him  for 
4 


[48] 

the  period  of  two  years.  It  was  not  our 
object,  in  this  little  essay,  to  show  how 
the  bishops  of  Eome  arrived  at  that  dis- 
tinction which  they  have  so  long  enjoyed, 
but  merely  to  show,  from  an  examination 
of  Scriptural  testimony,  that,  from  what- 
ever source  they  have  obtained  it,  they 
did  not  derive  it  from  St.  Peter. 

No  truth,  delivered  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, can  be  more  clearly  established 
than  that  of  the  equal  rank  of  the  apos- 
tles of  Christ. 

They  all  alike  received  the  plenitude 
of  apostolic  authority,  but  no  one  of  them 
was  ever  elevated  to  a  princely  dignity 
above  his  brethren :  they  were  designed 
to  act  in  harmony,  and  the  revealed  will 
of  their  divine  Master  was  the  great  cen- 
tral bond  of  union,  which  bound  them  to 
each  other. 

The  New  Testament  was  written  for 
the  express  purpose  of  giving  mankind 
an  account  of  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  history  of  the  Church  which  he 
established  in  the  world. 


[49] 

What  more  reasonable,  therefore,  than 
that  we  should  go  to  this  book  for  infor- 
mation respecting  the  doctrines  and  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church  ? 

If  a  man  should  write  a  history  of  the 
United  States,  for  the  information  of  its 
citizens,  and  the  instruction  of  other 
countries,  we  should  regard  it  as  a  most 
extraordinary  thing,  if  he  said  nothing 
of  its  chief  magistrate,  the  President. 

This  would  be  such  an  omission  as  no 
reader  could  help  regarding  as  a  most 
serious  defect. 

The  New  Testament  was  written  for 
the  instruction  of  the  whole  world,  and 
professes  to  teach  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation ;  but  if  Jesus  Christ  had  consti- 
tuted St.  Peter  the  supreme  Head  of  his 
Church,  so  important  a  doctrine  would 
have  been  conveyed  in  the  clearest  lan- 
guage ;  it  would  not  have  rested  for  sup- 
port on  one  or  two  texts  of  obscure  or 
doubtful  import,  but  would  have  been 
unfolded  with  the  utmost  clearness  and 
perspicuity. 


[  50  ] 

Had  Peter  really  been  supreme  Head 
of  the  Church,  and  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ, 
it  would  have  been  as  manifest  to  every 
individual  in  the  primitive  Church,  as  it 
is  evident  to  the  students  in  a  college  that 
the  president  of  such  institution  is  its 
head  and  their  governor. 

But,  as  we  have  already  shown,  not 
only  were  the  masses  of  believers  igno- 
rant of  the  authority  and  dignity  of  St. 
Peter,  but  even  the  apostles  were  igno- 
rant of  this  fact,  and,  strangest  of  all, 
Peter  knew  no  more  about  it  than  did 
those  around  him. 

And  should  we  attempt  to  ascend  the 
stream  of  time,  aided  by  the  best  and 
most  reliable  guides  which  ecclesiastical 
history  can  supply,  we  should  find,  after 
having  passed  the  middle  ages,  a  fainter 
and  still  fainter  response,  in  answer  to 
our  inquiries  after  the  supremacy  of 
the  Pope,  till  we  should  reach  the 
divine  source,  or  fountain-head,  when  it 
would  cease  to  vibrate  on  the  ear, 
and   be    lost    in    that    perfect    equality 


[  51  ] 

of  rank  which  Christ  conferred  on  his 
apostles. 

We  have  now  briefly  passed  over  the 
ground  we  proposed  occupying  at  the 
opening  of  this  discussion,  and  have 
proved,  we  hope,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
every  unprejudiced  reader,  that  Christ 
never  conferred  on  Peter  the  supremacy 
or  Papal  dignity  which  the  bishops  of 
Rome  have  so  long  usurped. 

We  have  seen,  from  an  examination  of 
the  passages  bearing  on  this  point,  that 
Peter  himself  never  laid  claim  to  the  Pa- 
pal offices  and  prerogatives ;  and,  in  the 
last  place,  that  the  other  apostles  never 
acknowledged  such  a  claim. 

"We  did  not  notice  the  passages  which 
Romish  writers  sometimes  cite,  in  sup- 
port of  the  claims  of  the  supremacy  of 
St.  Peter,  such  as  Peter  drawing  the  net 
to  land  full  of  great  fishes,  Christ  teach- 
ing out  of  Peter's  ship,  etc.,  for  the  sim- 
ple reason  that  we  did  not  think  them 
worthy  of  the  least  notice,  but  perfectly 
irrelevant  to  the  subject  under  debate. 


[52] 

We  may  consider  the  Scripture  tes- 
timony already  adduced  against  the 
Pope,  conclusive,  and  sufficiently  clear 
and  direct  to  prove  him  to  be,  not  the 
Yicar  or  deputy  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  the 
impudent  usurper  of  that  dignity,  which 
was  never  intended  to  be  conferred  on 
man  or  angel ;  for  Jesus  is  a  name  above 
every  name  in  heaven  or  upon  earth — a 
name,  at  the  mention  of  which  every  knee 
shall  bow,  and  every  tongue  confess,  to 
the  glory  of  God. 

But  let  no  apprehension  be  indulged, 
lest  Peter  should  be  robbed  of  any  thing 
that  belonged  to  him ;  he  enjoyed  the  ex- 
alted honor  of  preaching  the  Gospel, 
"with  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from 
heaven,"  to  both  Jews  and  Gentiles — to 
the  Jews  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  to  the 
Gentiles  in  the  family  of  Cornelius;  by 
which  he  first  employed  the  keys — after- 
ward given  to  the  other  apostles  ■ — in 
opening  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  both 
classes  of  mankind. 
We   might   have    brought   still  more 


[  53] 

proof  from  the  New  Testament ;  but  the 
limits  which  we  have  allotted  to  this 
small  work  would  not  permit  us  to  do  so. 
Still,  we  feel  confident  that  enough  has 
been  said  to  show  that,  on  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures,  there  is  no  foundation 
for  the  pretensions  of  the  Pope  of  Kome 
to  supremacy,  or  universal  pastorship  of 
the  Christian  Church,  which  is  utterly 
destitute  of  countenance  from  Christ  or 
his  apostles,  and  is,  therefore,  a  usurp- 
ation. 


TESTIMONY 

O  F 

AUGUSTIN  AND   CHRYSOSTOM 


Fundata  est  Ecclesia  super  petram,  unde  Petrus 
nomen  accepit.  Non  enim  a  Petro  petra,  sed  Petrus 
a  petra  :  sicut  non  Christus,  a  Christiano,  sed  Chris- 
tianas a  Christo,  vocatur.  Ideo  quippe  ait  Domi- 
nus  ;  Super  hanc  petram  oedificabo  Ecclesiam  ?neam: 
quia  dixerat  Petrus  :  Tu  es  Christus  Jilius  Dei  vivi. 
Super  hanc  ergo,  inquit,  petram,  quara  confessus  es, 
aedificabo  Ecclesiam  meara.  Petra  enim  erat  Chris- 
tus, super  quod  fundamentum  etiam  ipse  sedificatus 
est  Petrus.  Fundamentum,  quippe,  aliud  nemo  potest 
ponere,  prater  id  quod  positum  est;  quod  est  Christus 
Jesus. — August.  Expos,  in  Evan.  Johan.  Tract,  exxiv. 
Oper.  vol.  ix,  p.  206. 

'Efl-i  Tatt/Tw  th  iriT^ci:  ovk  iivrtv,  'E^ri  t^  IIsT-gai.  'Own 
yag  hri  Tu  &vd-^7rv,  <xx\'  itti  rtiv  mrln  njy  ictuvcu,  tKuXixrictv 
&Lc£oy.»<ri.  T*  Si  h  r>  Trio-It;;  10  u  o  Xpt<rlo;y  o  Cm  tou 
Qtov  rod  £wvto?. — Chrysost.  Serm.  de  Pentecost  Opcr.  vol. 
vi,  p.  233.    Lutet.  Paris.  1624. 


SUPREMACY  OF  THE  POPE. 

PART  II. 

While  we  regard  the  New  Testament 
as  the  arena  on  which  the  controversy 
concerning  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope 
should  be  finally  settled,  yet  experience 
teaches  us  that  Roman  Catholics,  haying 
abandoned  this  field  of  combat — the  sa- 
cred writings  of  the  inspired  apostles  and 
evangelists — prefer  the  opinions  of  those 
uninspired  men  denominated  the  holy 
Fathers,  who  flourished  in  the  primitive 
Church. 

We  propose,  therefore,  in  the  second 
part  of  this  little  work,  to  consult  these 
venerable  men,  in  order  that  we  may 
learn  their  opinion  of  the  powers  and 
prerogatives  of  the  apostles,  and  particu 
larly  those  of  Simon  Peter  and  the  dis 

57 


[  58  ] 

tinction  he  enjoyed  in  the  Christian 
Church. 

Our  inquiry,  it  should  be  kept  in  mind, 
is  not  to  disprove  any  precedence  of 
lionor,  or  any  merely  personal  priority, 
conferred  on  Peter,  but  to  ascertain 
whether  these  early  Christian  doctors  ac- 
cord to  Peter  any  supremacy  of  official 
rank  above  his  fellow-apostles,  or  admit 
them  to  have  been  constituted  equal  in 
power  and  atithority,  by  virtue  of  the 
commission  derived  from  their  Master. 

Since  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  many  excellent  things  have  been 
published  on  the  subject  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  claim  of  the  Papal  supremacy, 
both  on  the  continent  of  Europe  and  in 
England,  which  are  worthy  of  attention 
from  those  who  have  leisure  to  read  large 
books,  and  will  be  at  the  j3ains  of  separa- 
ting the  wheat  from  the  chaff — a  task 
whicli  some  of  these  writers  have  not 
been  very  careful  about. 

One  great  object  with  this  class  of  wri- 
ters seems  to  have  been  to  make  a  large 


[59] 

book,  and  sometimes,  it  may  be,  a  very 
dull  one ;  but  then  they  generally  make 
ample  amends  to  their  readers  for  this 
fault,  by  explaining  the  point  under  con- 
sideration, plentifully,  at  least,  and  gen- 
erally with  a  good  deal  of  clearness. 
Works,  also,  on  this  subject,  have  been 
produced  in  this  country  in  considerable 
numbers,  and  written  with  great  ability, 
exposing  the  numerous  errors  and  here- 
sies of  the  Church  of  Rome;  comprising 
sermons  and  lectures,  letters  and  essays ; 
among  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  say 
which  is  best,  since  they  are  so  excellent 
of  their  kind,  and  so  diverse  in  their 
method  of  treating  the  several  doctrines 
of  the  Romish  Church. 

Perhaps,  however,  those  published  by 
the  Reverend  Doctors  Elliott  and  Rice, 
of  Cincinnati,  and  the  learned  Bishop 
Hopkins,  of  Yermont,  may  be  regarded 
as,  on  the  whole,  deserving  the  preference, 
containing,  as  they  do,  a  great  mass  of 
valuable  information  on  the  errors  of  that 
corrupt  system ;  but  these  works  are  rather 


[  CO  ] 

voluminous,  and  necessarily  expensive, 
which  may  be  deemed  a  fair  excuse  for 
the  publication  of  smaller,  and  far  less 
expensive  works  on  the  subject. 

The  great  Isaac  Barrow,  who  has  writ- 
ten a  very  lengthy  discourse  on  this  ques- 
tion of  the  Papal  supremacy,  may  be 
regarded  as  good,  perhaps  the  best  au- 
thority on  this  point,  as  he  was  deeply 
learned,  and  particularly  well  acquainted 
with  the  Fathers  of  the  primitive  Church ; 
he  may  be  considered,  therefore,  as  a  safe 
guide  in  our  inquiries  of  these  ancient 
Christian  divines. 

Barrow  justly  regards  the  silence  of  the 
sacred  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  on 
this  subject  of  the  supremacy,  as  fatal  to 
the  doctrine. 

"  For,"  he  remarks,  "  such  a  power,  be- 
ing of  so  great  importance,  it  was  need- 
ful that  a  commission  from  God,  its 
founder,  should  be  granted  in  downright 
cmd  perspicuous  terms,  that  no  man, 
concerned  in  duty  grounded  thereon, 
might  have  any  doubt  of  it,  or  excuse 


[  61  ] 

for  boggling  at  it;  it  was  necessary,  not 
only  for  the  apostles,  to  bind  and  warrant 
their  obedience,  but  also  for  ns,  because 
it  is  made  the  sole  foundation  of  a  like 
duty  incumbent  upon  us,  which  we  can 
not  heartily  discharge  without  being  as- 
sured of  our  obligation  thereto,  by  clear 
revelation  or  promulgation  of  God's  will 
in  holy  Scripture;  for  it  was  of  old  a 
current,  and  ever  will  be  a  true  rule, 
which  St.  Austin,"  or  Augustin,  Bishop 
of  Hippo,  who  lived  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  fourth  century,  "  thus  expresseth  :  •  I 
do  believe  that  also,  on  this  side,  there 
would  be  most  clear  authority  of  the  di- 
vine oracles,  if  a  man  could  not  be  igno- 
rant Of  it  WITHOUT  DAMAGE  OF  HIS  SALVA- 
TION.' "  (See  Barrow  on  Supremacy,  p. 
150.) 

Here,  then,  my  respected  readers  will 
please  to  notice — and  it  is  worthy  of  their 
attention — that  we  have,  in  this  quotation 
from  St.  Austin,  the  Protestant  rule  of 
faith  held  up  before  our  mind  by  this 
learned,  and  deeply-pious  and  venerated 


[  62  ] 

Father  of  the  primitive  Church — a  Father 
whose  interpretations  and  teaching  are 
continually  appealed  to  by  Roman  Catho- 
lic divines.  We  have  this  great  Doctor 
teaching  us  this  leading  doctrine  of  the 
Protestant  Church:  that  the  Bible — which 
is  what  we  are  to  understand  here,  by 
"  most  clear  authority  of  the  divine  ora- 
cles " — contains  a  complete  and  sufficient 
rule  of  faiths  and  that  nothing  is  required 
to  be  believed  by  Christians,  in  order  to 
secure  their  eternal  salvation,  "  that  is  not 
contained  therein,  and  can  not  be  proved 
thereby." 

We  rejoice  in  the  clear  and  unequivo- 
cal testimony  of  this  good  Bishop,  on  the 
Protestant  side  of  the  controversy;  yes, 
we  can  claim  St.  Austin  as  one  who  cor- 
dially upholds  this  great  leading  doctrine 
of  the  Reformation. 

But,  as  we  advance,  we  shall  find  that 
St.  Austin  is  not  solitary  and  alone,  in 
bearing  this  noble  testimony  in  support 
of  the  holy  Scriptures,  as  constituting  the 
only  safe  and  reliable  rule  of  religious  be- 


[  63  ] 

lief.  The  following  citation  from  Lactan- 
tius — a  Father  of  the  primitive  Church, 
who  flourished  in  the  early  part  of  the 
fourth  century — is  still  clearer,  if  possi- 
ble, on  this  point.     He  says  : 

"  Those  things  can  have  no  foundation, 

OR  FIRMNESS,  WHICH  ARE  NOT  SUSTAINED  BY 
AN  ORACLE  OF  God's  WORD." 

Either,  then,  in  the  opinion  of  the  great 
St.  Austin  and  Lactantius,  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  Pope,  if  of  Divine  appoint- 
ment, and  necessary  to  be  believed  and 
acted  on  by  a  Christian,  in  order  to  se- 
cure his  salvation,  must  be  satisfactorily 
proved  by  "  most  clear  authority  of  the 

DIVINE  ORACLES,"  "  SUSTAINED  BY  AN  ORA- 
CLE of  God's  word,"  or  forever  aban- 
doned as  being  without  "  foundation  or 
firmness." 

We  render  our  sincere  thanks,  and 
most  grateful  acknowledgments,  to  these 
good  Fathers  of  the  primitive  Church,  for 
the  valuable  aid  which  they  afford  us,  in 
maintaining  the  great  leading  doctrines 
of  Protestantism,  while  we  proceed  to 
5 


[  c<±  J 

show  how  widely  they  differ,  on  some 
very  important  points,  from  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. 

And  that  these  illustrious  Fathers  may 
not  be  associated  with  doctors  of  an  infe- 
rior grade,  we  shall  not  quote  from  the 
teachings  of  a  simple  priest  or  obscure 
missionary,  but  from  men  of  equal,  or 
even  superior  rank  to  themselves. 

Archbishop  Kenrick,  of  St.  Louis, 
teaches,  from  the  pulpit  of  his  cathedral 
church,  in  that  city,  "that  all  who,  in 
the  pride  of  their  hearts,  refuse  to  sub- 
mit to  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  and  ac- 
knowledge his  supremacy,  have  forfeited 
their  lives  to  Divine  justice,  and  live  with 
the  death  penalty  hanging  continually 
over  their  heads."  This  illustrious  Arch- 
bishop, in  this  assertion,  or  anathema,  or 
whatever  we  may  think  fit  to  call  it,  most 
distinctly  teaches  that  a  belief  in  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Pope  is  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, and  in  the  same  lecture  adds,  that 
"no  well-instructed  member  of  the  Ro- 


[  65  ] 

man  Catholic  Church  ever  believed,  or 
supposed,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Pope's 
supremacy  could  be  proved  from  the  Kew 
Testament;  but  that  all  good  and  well- 
instructed  Roman  Catholics  receive  this, 
as  well  as  every  other  doctrine  of  theii 
holy  religion,  not  on  the  authority  of  the 
New  Testament,  out  on  the  authority  of 
the  Church  ;"*  thus  placing  the  authority 
of  the  Church  above  that  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  and,  at  the  same  time,  most 
fatally  for  the  cause  of  Romanism,  con- 
flicting in  opinion  with  St.  Austin,  in  the 
rule  of  faith  propounded  by  that  Father. 
St.  Austin  declares  that  nothing  should 
be  required  to  be  believed  of  a  man,  as 
necessary  to  secure  his  salvation,  which 
can  not  be  proved  by  the  "  most  clear  au- 
thority of  the  divine  oracles;"  while  the 
Archbishop  of  St.  Louis  freely  admits 
that  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  is  not  a 
doctrine  proved  by  such  authority,  and 
yet  has  the  boldness  to  differ,  in  this  im- 

*  Archbishop  Kenrick's  Lent  Lectures,  1851. 


L  66  ] 

portant  particular,  from  Austin  and  Lac- 
tantius,  that  he,  nevertheless,  deems  a  be- 
lief in  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  to  be 
necessary  to  salvation. 

But  what  is  to  become  of  the  boasted 
uniformity,  or  unanimity  of  opinion 
among  Catholic  bishops  in  matters  of 
faith,  of  which  we  hear  so  much  noise, 
from  Catholic  pulpits  and  presses,  at  this 
time? 

Most  evident  it  is,  that  St.  Austin 
teaches  very  differently,  in  reference  to 
the  rule  of  faith,  from  Archbishop  Ken- 
rick.  How  is  this  discrepancy  to  be  rec- 
onciled  on  Eoman   Catholic   principles? 

Protestants  can  readily  clear  up  the 
difficulty,  by  saying — and  they  can  prove 
it,  too,  by  this  very  discrepancy,  and  by 
the  agreement  of  their  faith  with  that  of 
St.  Augustin,  touching  the  Bible,  as  the 
only  rule  of  faith  —  that  the  Christian 
Church,  in  the  age  of  St.  Augustin,  dif- 
fered widely,  in  matters  of  faith  and  dis- 
cipline, from  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
of  the   nineteenth    century ;    that   errors 


L  M  ] 

were  not  then  so  rife  in  the  primitive 
Church  as  they  now  are  in  the  Church  of 
Rome ;  and  among  other  departures  from 
the  simplicity  of  the  apostolic  platform, 
the  Church  did  not  then  acknowledge  the 
supremacy  of  the  Pope,  as  we  hope  pres- 
ently to  prove  from  the  honest  testimony 
of  these  same  Fathers. 

But  to  return  to  the  more  immediate 
purpose  of  our  present  inquiry.  Barrow 
very  justly  remarks,  "If  so  illustrious  an 
office  was  instituted  by  our  Savior,  it  is 
strange  that  no  where  in  the  evangelical,  or 
apostolic  history,  wherein  divers  acts  and 
passages  of  smaller  amount  are  recorded, 
there  should  be  any  express  mention  of 
that  institution,  there  beiug  not  only 
much  reason  for  such  a  report,  but  many 
pat  occasions  for  it :  [as]  the  time  when  St. 
Peter  was  vested  with  such  authority,  the 
manner  and  circumstances  of  his  install- 
ment therein,  the  nature,  rules,  and  limits 
of  such  an  office,  had  surely  well  deserved 
to  have  been  noted,  among  other  occur 
rences  relating  to  our  faith  and  discipline, 


[68] 

by  the  holy  evangelists :  no  one  of  them, 
in  all  probability,  could  have  forborne, 
punctually,  to  relate  a  matter  of  so  great 
consequence  as  the  settlement  of  a  mon- 
arch in  God's  Church,  and  a  sovekeign 
of  the  apostolic  college,  from  whom  so 
eminent  authority  was  to  be  derived  to 
all  posterity,  for  compliance  wherewith 
the  whole  Church  forever  must  be  ac- 
countable :  particularly,  it  is  not  credible 
that  St.  Luke  should  quite  slip  over  so 
notable  a  passage,  who  had,  as  he  tells 
us,  '  attained  a  perfect  understanding  in 
all  things]  and  had  undertaken  to  write 
in  order  the  things  which  were  surely  be- 
lieved among  Christians  in  his  time,  of 
which  things  this,  if  any,  was  one  of  the 
most  considerable." 

This  long  and  pertinent  quotation  from 
Barrow,  carries  with  it  great  weight,  and 
furnishes,  at  least,  a  strong  presumptive 
proof  that  St.  Luke  knew  nothing  about 
the  supremacy  of  St.  Peter,  or  his  success- 
ors,  as  the  Popes  of  Rome  arrogantly 
and  falsely  style  themselves ;  and  as  the 


[  69  ] 

other  evangelists  and  Xew  Testament 
writers  are  equally  silent  on  this  point, 
as  we  have  already  shown,  in  the  former 
part  of  this  work,  we  may  very  rationally 
arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  no  such  of- 
fice as  that  of  Sovereign  Pontiff,  or  su- 
preme governor  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
as  at  present  claimed  by  the  Pope,  did 
then  exist,  or  was  known  by  the  apostles, 
unless,  indeed,  it  was  revealed  to  some 
few  of  them,  as  to  St.  John  and  St.  Paul, 
as  an  unmistakable  mark  of  Antichrist, 
or  "  the  man  of  sin  " — names  by  which 
the  Pope  is  pointed  out,  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
to  the  beloved  disciple,  and  the  great 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles. 

But  continues  Barrow,  "There  was,  in- 
deed, no  office  above  that  of  an  apostle 
known  to  the  apostles,  or  to  the  primi- 
tive Church ;  '  this,'  [the  apostolic  office,] 
saith  St.  Chrysostom,  'was  the  greatest 
authority,  and  the  top  of  authorities? 
4  there  was,'  saith  he,  '  none  before  an 
apostle,  none  superior,  none  equal  to  him,'' 
This  he  asserteth  of  all  the  apostles ;  this 


[  70  ] 

lie  particularly  applyeth  to  St.  Paul ;  this 
he  demonstrate™  from  St.  Paul  himself, 
who,  purposely  enumerating  the  chief  offi- 
cers instituted  by  God,  in  his  Church, 
doth  place  apostles  in  the  highest  rank. 
'Our  Lord,'  saith  St.  Paul,  'gave  some 
apostles,  some  prophets,  some  evangelists, 
some  pastors  and  teachers ;'  and  again, 
'God  hath  set  some  in  his  Church,  first 
apostles,  secondarily  prophets,  thirdly 
teachers,'  etc.  On  the  Pomish  preten- 
sion, or  claim  for  the  Papacy,  why  not 
first  a  Pope,  a  universal  pastor,  an  ecu- 
menical judge,  a  Yicar  of  Christ,  a  Head 
of  the  Catholic  Church?  Could  St.  Paul 
be  so  ignorant  ?  could  he  be  so  negligent, 
or  envious,  as  to  pass  by,  without  any  dis- 
tinction, the  suprems  officer,  if  such  a 
one  then  had  been?  St.  Chrysostoin,  the 
learned  and  eloquent  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, therefore,  did  hence  very  ra- 
tionally infer  that  the  apostolic  office  was 
supreme  in  the  Christian  state,  having  no 
other  superior  to  it."  (See  Barrow  on  the 
Supremacy,  p.  152.) 


[  n  i 

"  We,"  says  St.  Chrysostom,  "  were  de- 
signed to  teach  the  world  not  to  exercise 
empire,  or  absolute  sovereignty?''  "A 
bishop,"  says  St.  Jerome,  "  differs  from  a 
king,  in  that  a  bishop  presides  over  those 
who  are  willing,  the  king  against  their 
will."  "  Thou,"  says  St.  Bernard  to  Pope 
Eugenius,  "dost  superintend,  the  name 
of  bishop  signifying  to  thee,  not  domin- 
ion, but  duty."  "  They  were  all,"  says 
Chrysostom,  again  referring  to  the  apos- 
tles, "  in  common,  intrusted  with  the 
whole  world,  and  had  the  care  of  all  na- 
tions." 

So  far,  at  least,  the  New  Testament  and 
the  Fathers  of  the  primitive  Church 
agree  in  rejecting  the  notion,  afterward 
introduced,  of  tlie  supremacy  of  the  Pope 
having  been  originally  conferred,  by 
Jesus  Christ,  on  this  apostle,  Simon  Pe- 
ter. From  these  sources,  then — the  New 
Testament  and  the  Fathers — there  is  no 
testimony  for  the  support  of  the  Papal 
claim,  on  which  any  dependence  can  be 
placed,  it  being  alike  rejected  by  Scrip- 


[72] 

ture  and  the  Fathers,  and  requires  all  the 
impudence  of  oft-repeated  assertion,  with- 
out  proof,  to  sustain  it  in  existence  to  the 
present  time.  This  gross  imposition  of 
the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  is  so  utterly 
without  foundation  in  the  Scripture  and 
the  Fathers,  and,  together  with  its  pre- 
tended claim  of  infallibility,  so  every 
way  repugnant  to  common  sense,  as 
justly  entitles  it  to  be  treated  with  the 
same  contempt  which  is  due  to  Mormon- 
ism,  or  any  other  baseless  absurdity  which 
has  ever  appeared  in  the  world. 

O,  the  power  of  priestcraft !  The  ju- 
dicial darkness  which  rests  on  the  minds 
of  her  followers,  when  the  Church  of 
Rome  can  forge  such  falsehoods,  and 
make  them  pass  for  genuine  with  her 
obedient,  but  most  gullible,  children  and 
subjects  !  Yerily,  it  requires  an  amount 
of  persevering  impudence,  which  alone 
can  be  derived  from  the  devil,  to  make 
such  a  bungling  and  unsupported  impos- 
ture pass  for  truth  in  the  present  enlight- 
ened age  of  the  world. 


[  73] 

But  to  return  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers  on  this  question  of  the  suprem- 
acy, what  can  be  more  to  the  point  than 
the  following  language  of  Cyprian,  Bishop 
of  Carthage,  who  nourished  during  the 
middle  of  the  third  century :  "The  other 
apostles,"  he  tells  us,  "were  indeed  that 
which  Peter  was,  endowed  with  equal 
consortship  of  honor  and  power."  He 
further  informs  us  that  our  Lord,  after  his 
resurrection,  gave  to  all  his  apostles  an 
equal  power,  when  he  said,  "  As  the  Fa- 
ther sent  me,  so  I  send  yon."  St.  Chry- 
sostom  once  more  says,  "  St.  Paul  shew- 
eth  that  each  apostle  did  enjoy  equal  dig- 
nity" (See  Chrysostom  on  Gal.  2d  chap, 
and  8th  verse.) 

St.  Jerome,  in  the  following  language, 
bears  the  clearest  testimony  to  the  perfect 
equality  of  all  the  apostles  :  "  The 
strength  of  the  Church  is  equally  settled 
on  them;"  probably  referring  to  the 
twelve  foundations,  mentioned  by  St. 
John  in  the  Revelation. 

We  may,  perhaps,  as  well  cite,  in  this 


[« ] 

place,  that  oft-repeated  declaration  of 
this  great  Doctor,  of  the  perfect  equality 
of  all  bishops,  in  the  early  days  of  Chris- 
tianity, including  even  Rome  itself  in 
the  list :  "  Wherever  a  bishop  be,  whether 
at  Rome  or  Engubium,  at  Constantino- 
ple or  at  Regium,  at  Alexandria  or  at 
Thanis,  he  is  of  the  same  worth,  and  of 
the  same  priesthood :  the  force  of  wealth 
and  lowness  of  poverty  doth  not  render 
a  bishop  more  high  or  more  low;  for  that 
all  of  them  are  the  successors  of  the 
apostles." 

On  the  one  text  of  Roman  Catholics, 
'•Thou  art  Peter,"  etc.,  St.  Chrysostom 
gives  us  the  following  commentary:  "  Upon 
this  rock — he  did  not  say  upon  Peter  ;  for 
not  upon  the  man,  out  t(po?i  his  faith, 
says  Christ,  I  will  build  my  Church. 
And  what  was  this  faith  ?  '  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.'  " 

And  St.  Augustin  on  this  text,  has 
the  following  language :  "  The  Church 
is  built  upon  the  rock  whence  Peter  de- 
rived his  name ;  for  the  rock  is  not  from 


[75  ] 

Peter,  but  Peter  from  the  rock.  As 
Christ  is  not  from  Christian,  but  Christian 
from  Christ  is  called  ;  therefore,  the  Lord 
says,  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church,  because  Peter  had  said,  Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God ; 
therefore  he,  Christ,  says,  Upon  this  rock, 
which  you  confess,  I  will  build  my  Church; 
for  Christ  was  the  rock  upon  which 
foundation,  also,  Peter  himself  is  built. 
For  other  foundation  can  no  one  lay  than 
that  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ."  (See 
the  original  Greek  and  Latin  of  these 
translations,  on  leaf  before  second  part.) 
Truly  it  is  painful  to  witness  the  trouble 
which  the  Church  of  Kome  takes  to  up- 
hold and  propagate  error.  She  unblush- 
ingly  contradicts  both  Scripture  and  the 
Fathers  of  the  primitive  Church,  and,  by 
empty  blustering  and  vaporing,  seems 
resolved  to  brave  it  out  to  the  last.  The 
holy  Fathers  deny  the  supremacy  of  St. 
Peter,  because  they  can  not  find  any 
clear  oracle  of  God's  word  which  affords 
the  least  support  to  such  claim.     Arch- 


[  T6  ] 

bishop  Kenrick,  also,  admits  that  it  is  "  a 
doctrine  not  taught  in  the  ISTew  Testa- 
ment," or  to  be  proved  by  the  authority 
of  any  clear  oracle  of  God's  word.  So 
far  St.  Augustin  and  the  Archbishop 
agree,  but  diverge,  fatally  for  the  cause 
of  Romanism,  in  their  conclusions  from 
the  same  premises.  While  the  Fathers 
abandon  the  claim  of  the  supremacy,  be- 
cause it  can  not  be  proved  from  the  New 
Testament,  or  some  other  clear  authority 
of  God's  word,  which  is  a  most  rational 
or  evangelical  mode  of  proceeding,  the 
Archbishop  refuses  to  come  to  a  similar 
conclusion  ;  and  though  he  freely  admits 
it  can  not  be  proved  by  Scripture,  still 
maintains  the  supremacy  on  the  authority 
of  the  Church  alone. 

On  this  question  of  the  supremacy,  as 
well  as  on  other  theological  questions,  the 
Fathers  of  the  primitive  Church  con- 
stantly appeal  to  the  Scriptures  as  the 
highest  authority ;  while  the  Church  of 
Rome  most  strangely  appeals  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church  alone.    Jesus  Christ 


acknowledges  Scripture  as  the  sonrce  of 
correct  information  on  all  religious  sub- 
jects; the  Church  of  Rome  rejects  this 
mode  of  conducting  a  religious  contro- 
versy, and  thus,  in  effect,  pours  contempt 
on  the  holy  Scriptures  and  their  divine 
author,  Jesus  Christ :  besides  all  this,  it 
is  a  most  fallacious  and  illogical  mode  of 
reasoning  which  the  Church  of  Eome  has 
adopted ;  it  is  the  Church  her  own  wit- 
ness, the  Church  bearing  testimony  to 
herself. 

This  is  apiece  with  certain  ancient  phi- 
losophers, who  supposed  that  the  globe 
we  inhabit  rested  for  support  on  the  back 
of  a  tortoise,  or  turtle;  but  when  asked 
what  does  the  tortoise  stand  on,  were  at 
their  wits'  end.  Their  theory,  then,  was 
completely  used  up.  And  thus  it  is  with 
the  Church  of  Home ;  they  claim  for  St. 
Peter  and  his  pretended  successors,  the 
Popes  of  Rome,  supremacy,  or  universal 
dominion  over  the  Church  of  Christ  upon 
earth ;  but  very  unluckily  for  their  scheme, 
those  who  should  know  most  about  it,  and 


[78] 

one  would  expect  should  say  most  about 
it,  evidently  appear  to  Tcnow  nothing 
about  it,  considered  as  a  divine  arrange- 
ment, or  feature  of  government,  in  the 
Christian  Church. 

Christ,  the  great  Head  of  the  Church, 
positively  declares  to  his  apostles,  that, 
although  the  surrounding  nations  had 
princes,  who  exercised  dominion  or  au- 
thority over  them,  yet  it  should  not  be  so 
among  them,  the  disciples  and  apostles, 
but  they  were  all  brethren,  and  therefore 
they  were  not  at  liberty  to  call  any  man 
father  on  earth,  since  one  was  their  Fa- 
ther, even  God — nor  to  call  any  man 
master,  or  chief,  since  one  was  their  Mas- 
ter, even  Christ,  who  is  thus  declared  to 
be  the  only  dfo;m<?fo/-constituted  Head, 
Master,  and  governor  of  the  Church. 

Still,  in  the  face  of  this  most  clear  tes- 
timony against  the  doctrine  of  the  Pope's 
supremacy,  from  the  lips  of  Infinite  Wis- 
dom, truth,  and  purity,  the  Church  of 
Rome  has  the  arrogance  to  pretend  that 
Jesus  Christ  constituted  Peter  the  supreme 


[79] 

Head  of  his  Church  on  earth — his  deputy 
and  representative  in  the  world.  Thus 
the  Church  of  Rome  is  resolved  to  force 
a  deputy,  or  Vicar,  on  Jesus  Christ, 
whether  he  will  receive  him  or  not ;  nay, 
against  his  formal  protest  to  the  contrary, 
made  in  the  most  solemn  manner  in  the 
presence  of  all  his  apostles.  Has  not  that 
old  serpent,  who  tempted  Christ  in  the 
wilderness,  something  to  do  in  all  this? 
Is  it  not  manifestly  the  work  of  the  devil  ? 
It  is  in  vain  to  deny  this,  unless  we  deny 
the  existence  of  that  evil  power  or  spirit ; 
but  this  admitted,  is  not  the  Pope  Anti- 
christ, the  man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdi- 
tion or  destruction,  who  is  to  be  destroyed, 
not  reformed,  as  some  well-meaning  but 
weak  persons  vainly  imagine?  Is  it  the 
duty  of  the  Christian  world  to  submit 
coolly  to  this  usurpation,  especially  when 
they  reflect  on  the  source  whence  it 
springs  ? 

Yerily  the  Protestant  Church  is  guilty 
of  gross  neglect  of  duty,  by  tamely  sub- 
mitting to  so  base  an  imposition. 
6 


[  so  ] 

But  pardon,  my  reader,  this  brief  di- 
gression from  the  main  point  under  con- 
sideration. The  testimony  of  these  ven- 
erable Fathers  of  the  primitive  Church 
is  truly  valuable,  and  most  convincing, 
on  the  Protestant  side  of  the  controversy, 
and  though  a  little  dry  and  monotonous, 
yet  I  feel  persuaded  that,  on  account  of 
its  intrinsic  value,  and  direct  bearing  on 
our  position,  you  will  patiently  bear  with 
whatever  additional  details  may  be  pro- 
duced from  this  reliable  source. 

Before  resuming  these  quotations  from 
the  Fathers,  it  may  not  be  deemed  alto- 
gether unprofitable  further  to  contrast 
these  primitive  teachers  and  pastors  of 
the  Gliurcli  of  Christy  with  the  teachers 
and  pastors  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
of  the  present  day.  If  these  Fathers  be- 
lieved in  all  the  doctrines  maintained  and 
taught  in  the  Church  of  Kome  of  the 
present  time,  as  the  bishops  and  other 
teachers  and  doctors  of  Eome  pretend  to 
say  they  did,  how  is  it,  we  beg  leave  to 
ask,  that  they  do  not  adopt  a  similar  mode 


[  81  ] 

of  reasoning  with  the  divines  of  tne  pres 
ent  Church  of  Rome?  At  least,  if  they 
received  all  the  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
not  on  the  authority  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  on  the  authority  of  the  Church, 
how  is  it  that  they  do  not  themselves  tell 
us  so  ?  Or  why  do  they  waste  so  much 
time  in  making  appeals  to  that  "dead 
letter,"  the  Bible,  in  support  of  the  doc- 
trines they  advance  ?  Why  did  they  not 
turn  from  the  New  Testament  to  the  vi- 
sions of  the  saints,  from  the  written  word 
to  the  unwritten  word — oral  tradition — 
the  urim  and  thummim  of  Roman  Catho- 
lics of  the  present  age ;  or,  as  a  last  resort, 
fall  back  upon  the  authority  of  the  Church, 
which,  being  infallible,  can  not  err  ? 

Why  did  they  not  have  recourse  to 
some  of  these  methods,  so  successfully 
employed  by  Roman  Catholics  of  the 
present  era,  in  the  propagation  of  their 
tenets?  Simply  because  these  Fathers 
were  honest  men,  and  had  no  interest  in 
imposing  on  the  world.  Their  object  was 
simply  to  teach  the  truth,  and  they  very 


[82] 

naturally  resorted  to  those  records  of  Di- 
vine truth,  written,  under  the  supervision 
and  at  the  dictation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
by  the  apostles  and  evangelists  who  were, 
for  the  most  part,  the  companions  and 
disciples  of  Christ,  the  author  and  gov- 
ernor of  the  Christian  Church.  To  what 
purer  source,  to  what  more  approved  and 
reliable  authority,  could  they  possibly 
resort  for  information  than  to  the  inspired 
apostles  of  Jesus  Christ?  If  their  most 
manifestly  inspired  testimony  could  not 
be  relied  on,  where  could  they  go  ? 

"  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou 
hast  the  words  of  eternal  life."  O,  how 
little  did  these  simple-hearted  fathers 
know  of  the  cunning  plans  and  devices 
of  the  Roman  Church  of  these  times  \ 
To  whom  shall  we  go  for  information, 
says  this  disciple  of  Christ,  but  to  thee, 
O  blessed  Jesus?  "For  thou  hast  the 
words  of  eternal  life !" 

That  word,  or  those  words  of  eternal 
life,  the  Church  of  Rome  at  the  present 
day   pronounces   "a   dead   letter;"    and 


[83] 

those  who  now  ask  the  important  ques- 
tion, "To  whom  shall  we  go?"  are  sent 
by  these  blind  guides,  not  to  Jesus  Christ 
or  his  word,  but  to  oral  tradition,  to  the 
saints,  and  the  Virgin  Mary,  whose  claims 
to  respect  rest  on  the  authority  of  the 
Church  of  Home  alone,  not  on  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  Christ,  who  declares  that 
those  who  do  his  will,  are  regarded  by 
him  as  mother,  sisters,  and  brothers! 

But  had  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility 
of  the  Church  been  generally  received, 
in  the  days  of  Austin  and  Chrysostom, 
they,  and  other  Fathers  of  those  times, 
would  have  submitted  to  it,  and  appealed 
to  it  in  support  or  rejection  of  the  claim 
or  pretension  put  forth,  at  an  early  pe- 
riod, by  certain  ambitious  Prelates  of  the 
city  of  Rome,  in  favor  of  Supremacy. 
They  never  did  so ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
constantly  appealed  to  Seripture,  as  the 
only  legitimate  method  of  settling  contro- 
verted points  in  the  Church — a  method 
still  pursued  by  all  Protestants,  but  re- 
jected by  the  Church  of  Rome,  which 


[84] 

proves,  beyond  dispute,  that  the  Church 
of  Rome,  of  the  present  times,  does  not 
hold  the  same  doctrines,  and  profess  the 
same  faith  with  the  Fathers  of  the  prim- 
itive Church,  and,  therefore,  that  it  is  not 
Protestants,  but  the  modern  Church  of 
Rome  that  has  departed  from  the  faith 
of  the  apostolic  Church. 

There  are,  then,  two  points,  or  particu- 
lars, in  the  testimony  of  the  holy  Fathers 
worthy  of  great  attention,  so  far  as  the 
interests  of  the  Papal  supremacy  are  con- 
cerned. First.  If  the  supremacy  had 
been  really  conferred  on  Peter  by  Jesus 
Christ,  and  had  descended  to  the  bishops 
of  Rome  by  Divine  appointment,  it  would 
no  more  have  been  called  in  question 
than  would  the  Episcopal  authority  of 
those  bishops.  And,  in  the  second  place, 
if  the  Church  had  then  been  universally 
regarded  as  infallible,  such  infallibility 
would  have  been  insisted  upon  by  the 
ambitious  aspirants  to  supremacy — by 
Stephen  and  other  ambitious  bishops  of 
Rome. 


[  85  ] 

Instead  of  this,  both  those  who  aspired 
to  the  supremacy,  and  those  who  rejected 
their  pretensions,  constantly  appeal  to 
holy  Scripture,  as  the  only  authority  in 
the  case  that  could  be  admitted  in  decid- 
ing controverted  points  in  religion. 

It  is  therefore  clear,  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  a  doubt,  that  the  doctrine  of 
infallibility,  so  stoutly  contended  for  by 
the  Church  of  Rome  of  these  times,  was 
wholly  unknown  to  the  Fathers  of  the 
primitive  Church,  and  must,  therefore, 
have  been  introduced  at  a  later  period, 
and  consequently  is  spurious,  and  not  of 
apostolic  origin.  All  the  arguments  of 
the  early  Fathers  go  to  prove,  most  con- 
clusively, that  infallibility  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  the  result  of  ecclesiastical 
despotism  not  of  divine  appointment. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  disinterested 
bishops  and  pastors  of  the  primitive 
Church  did  vigorously  oppose  the  preten- 
sions of  some  of  the  early  bishops  of 
Rome  to  supremacy,  and  most  triumph- 
antly proved   that  it  was  a  claim   that 


[  86  ] 

could  not  be  sustained,  still,  on  account 
of  the  consequence  the  bishops  of  Rome 
derived  from  their  position  in  this  great 
metropolis,  not  merely  of  the  Roman  em- 
pire, but  of  the  civilized  world,  and, 
from  the  circumstance  of  being  fre- 
quently resorted  to  for  counsel  by  other 
bishops,  they  at  length  began  to  arrogate 
to  themselves  privileges  and  prerogatives 
above  their  brother  bishops ;  and  having 
done  so,  began  to  look  around  for  some- 
thing like  countenance  from  the  teaching 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles ;  for  it  required 
some  time  before  Popery  could  stand 
firmly  upon  its  own  legs,  without  some 
sort  of  countenance  and  support  from  the 
New  Testament:  thus  the  pretensions  of 
these  proud  aspirants  after  supreme  au- 
thority was,  at  an  early  day,  attempted 
to  be  placed  on  that  solitary  text  recorded 
by  St.  Matthew,  "Thou  art  Peter,  and  on 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church."  This 
claim,  or  pretended  claim,  the  Fathers  of 
those  times  met  by  arguments  based  on 
what  Christ  and  his  apostles  have  taught 


[  87  ] 

on  this  subject,  and  for  obtaining  this  in- 
formation, of  course  resort  to  the  writings 
of  the  apostles  and  evangelists,  as  the 
proper  documentary  evidence,  or  testi- 
mony, calculated  to  establish  or  defeat 
this  claim. 

They  go,  then,  to  these  sacred  records 
to  learn  the  mind  of  Christ,  to  see  what 
powers  he  has  conferred  on  his  apos- 
tles, whether  Peter  is  indeed  their  prince 
or  chief,  and  the  bishop  of  Koine  his 
successor;  or  whether  Christ  made  the 
apostles  all  equal,  and  the  bishop  of 
Rome  no  greater  than  themselves. 

They  examine  fairly  and  impartially 
the  several  passages  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment bearing  on  this  subject;  and  failing 
to  prove  that  the  Savior  ever  conferred 
any  supreme  authority  on  Peter,  hut  act- 
ually proving  the  very  reverse,  namely, 
that  Christ  never  intended  to  confer  any 
such  distinction,  either  on  Peter  or  any 
other  apostle  or  bishop,  they  distinctly 
and  unhesitatingly  announce  the  doctrine 
as  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  the  testimony 


[  88  ] 

of  the  inspired  volume,  that  the  apos 
tles  of  christ  were  all  constituted 
equal  in  power  and  authority  by  their 
divine  Master! 

In  this  decision  of  the  primitive  Fa- 
thers, based  on  the  holy  Scriptures,  some 
of  the  wisest  and  best  among  modern 
Catholics  of  the  Church  of  Rome  concur, 
notwithstanding  these  same  persons  are 
bound  to  follow,  not  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles, but  the  Pope  and  the  Church  of 
Rome,  although  these  go  directly  con- 
trary to  their  personal  convictions  of  di- 
vine truth. 

"We  know,"  says  Cardinal  Cusanus, 
"that  Peter  did  not  receive  more 
power  from  Christ  than  the  other 
apostles  ;  for  nothing  was  said  to  Peter 
which  was  not  also  said  to  the  others ;" 
therefore,  adds  the  Cardinal,  "  we  rightly 
say  that  all  the  apostles  were  equal 
to  Peter  ln  power  !" 

Our  readers  will  bear  with  us  in  the 
length  to  which  we  draw  out  this  testimony 
of  the  Fathers,  against  the  Roman  Catho- 


[  89] 

lie  doctrine  of  the  supremacy  of  the 
Pope,  from  considerations  of  its  monot 
onous  character,  which,  in  more  skillful 
hands,  and  under  the  control  of  a  more 
sprightly  imagination,  might  indeed  be 
considerably  relieved  from  the  charge  of 
dullness,  but  would  not,  therefore,  be  nec- 
essarily more  convincing,  although  cer- 
tainly more  attractive;  out  argument  is 
the  main  thing,  it  should  be  remembered, 
with  which  we  feel  concerned  in  the  pres- 
ent undertaking;  for  if  we  should  be  so 
fortunate  as  to  establish  this  point,  that 
Peter  never  received  any  supremacy  of 
rank  or  official  superiority  over  the  other 
apostles,  we  shall  be  readily  excused  on 
the  score  of  dullness  and  tautology;  but 
should  we  fail  of  making  out  our  case, 
no  flowers  of  rhetoric  with  which  we 
might  embellish  our  composition,  could 
make  any  amends  for  so  serious  a  defect, 
since,  however  worthy  of  praise  in  other 
respects,  it  would  be  utterly  valueless  in 
not  accomplishing  the  single  purpose  for 
«hich  it  was  written. 


[  90] 

And  now  again  for  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers ;  for  they  have  much  more  to  say 
against  the  assumptions  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  touching  the  doctrine  of  Popish 
supremacy,  the  "mystery  of  iniquity," 
which  began  to  work  even  in  their  day. 

11  If,"  says  Origen,  the  great  Father  of 
interpreters,  u  you  think  the  whole  Church 
to  be  only  built  on  Peter  alone,  what  will 
you  say  of  John,  the  son  of  thunder,  and 
of  each  of  the  apostles  f  '  Christ,'  as 
Jerome  says,  '  was  the  rock,  and  he  be- 
stowed it  on  the  apostles  that  they  should 
be  called  rocks ;'  and  you  say  that  the 
Church  is  founded  on  Peter,  but  the  same 
in  another  place  is  done  on  all  the  apos- 
tles." "The  Church,"  saith  St.  Basil, 
"is  built  on  the  foundation  of  the 
prophets  and  apostles.  Was  Peter  an 
embassador,  a  steward,  a  minister  of 
Christ  ?  So  were  they  all.  Was  he  the 
rock  on  which  the  Church  was  founded  ? 
So  were  all  the  apostles  of  Christ ;  for 
the  wall  of  the  !New  Jerusalem,  which 
John  saw  coming  down  from  heaven,  had 


[91  ] 

twelve  foundations,  on  which  were  in- 
scribed the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles 
of  the  Lamb. 

"  AVas  St.  Peter  an  architect  of  the 
great  spiritual  building,  the  Church  ?  So 
were  they  all :  for  Paul  says,  'I,  as  a 
wise  master-builder,  have  laid  the  founda- 
tion.' Did  Peter  receive  the  power  of 
binding  and  loosing?  So  did  all  the 
apostles.  i  Whatsoever  things  ye  shall 
bind  on  earth,  they  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven]  saith  the  same  divine  Savior  to 
them  all." 

"  These,"  says  Barrow,  "  are  fair  expli- 
cations of  the  metaphor,  [of  the  rock,] 
without  any  reference  to  St.  P-eter's  gov- 
ernment" 

We  might  still  continue  our  quotations 
from  the  Fathers  to  the  same  effect ;  but 
surely  ample  testimony  has  already  been 
produced,  from  this  source,  to  prove  that 
the  supremacy  of  St.  Peter  over  the  other 
apostles  was  not  regarded  as  a  doctrine 
of  religion,  or  an  institution  of  Christ,  in 
their  time  ;  and  consequently  any  preten 


[  92] 

Bions  to  supremacy  on  the  part  of  the 
bishops  of  Home,  must  be  regarded  as 
usurpation,  or,  viewed  in  the  most  favora- 
ble light,  merely  as  an  ecclesiastical  ap- 
pointment, which  required  the  attribute 
of  infallibility  to  give  it  the  sanction  of 
Divine  authority;  and  hence  the  origin 
and  use  of  infallibility  in  the  Church  of 
Home,  so  very  convenient,  nay,  more,  so 
indispensable  to  that  Church,  to  supply 
the  place  of  the  sanctions  of  Scripture 
and  common  sense  —  serious  defects 
which  Rome  could  not  supply  on  easier 
terms. 

We  have,  doubtlessly,  said  enough 
about  the  rock  Peter,  and  the  rock  Christ, 
to  convince  any  reader  that  the  Fathers 
understood  the  meaning  of  these  terms, 
as  they  are  generally  understood  by  Prot- 
estants of  the  present  time,  but  in  a  man- 
ner widely  different  from  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Poman  Catholic  Church  of  the 
present  day. 

We  Protestants  have  Christ  and  his 
inspired  apostles  and  evangelists,  and  the 


[  93  ] 

most  learned  and  pious  Fathers  and  doc- 
tors of  the  primitive  Church,  on  our  side. 

Why,  then,  should  we  envy  the  Church 
of  Pome  its  mere  ipse  dixit,  its  own  per- 
sonal testimony,  or  rather  its  assertion, 
often,  indeed,  repeated,  but  never  proved, 
that  the  Church  is  infallible,  and  that  St. 
Peter  was  its  first  Pope  f  Christ  assures 
us  that  he  was  not  a  Pope,  or  supreme 
Pontiff,  or  governor  of  the  Christian 
Church ;  that  it  teas  not  his  intention  to 
create  such  a  chief  or  ruler  of  his  Church; 
that  being  divine,  possessed  of  all  wis- 
dom and  power,  he  did  not  need  such 
deputy,  or  Vice- Christ,  over  his  Church; 
that  he  was  the  Master  of  Peter,  as  well 
as  all  the  other  apostles,  and  that  all  they 
were  brethren. 

The  apostles  all  confirm  this  declara- 
tion of  their  Master,  in  a  most  convincing 
and  practical  manner,  by  according  no 
special  deference,  respect,  or  obedience  to 
Peter;  and  last  of  all,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  Peter  himself  utterly  disclaims  any 
such  pre-eminence,  and  calls  himself,  so 


[  W  ] 

far  as  ministerial  order  is  concerned,  sim- 
ply an  elder  or  presbyter,  and  the  holy 
Fathers  of  the  primitive  Church  confirm 
all  this;  and  still  the  Church  of  Eome, 
most  strangely,  continues  to  declare  to  the 
world  that  Peter  was  a  veritable  Pope 
and  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ ! 

As  well,  and  with  equal  propriety, 
might  the  raving  maniac,  confined  in 
the  lunatic  asylum,  assert  himself  to  be 
a  monarch  or  a  prince;  nay,  icith  much 
greater  propriety,  since,  in  the  latter  case, 
the  assertion  could  not  be  contradicted  by 
that  high  authority  which  has  already 
pronounced  a  final  decision  on  the  pre- 
tended eiaim  of  the  supremacy  of  Peter. 
"One  is  your  Master,'7  not  Peter,  but 
Chkist,  **  and  all  ye  are  brethren." 

To  maintain  this  doctrine,  then,  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  Pope,  on  the  plea  that 
it  was  at  first  conferred,  by  Jesus  Christ, 
on  the  apostle  Peter,  is  not  altogether  so 
harmless  a  thing  as  some  very  feeble  and 
inconsistent  so-calUd  Protestants  seem  to 
regard  it,  but  a  most  high-handed  piece 


[  95  ] 

of  blasphemy  and  impiety ;  since  it  is 
nothing  less  than  to  give  the  lie  direct  to 
Jesus  Christ  himself,  and  does  really  dis- 
cover in  them  that  mark  of  the  least,  in- 
dicated in  holy  Scripture  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  and  recorded  by  the  apostle  Paul, 
in  the  second  chapter  of  his  second  epis- 
tle to  the  Thessalonians :  "  That  man  of 
sin,  the  son  of  perdition,  who  opposeth 
and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is 
called  God,  or  that  is  worshiped ;  so 
that  he,  as  God,  sitteth  in  the  temple  of 
God,  shewing  himself  that  he  is  God." 

Fearful,  then,  must  be  the  responsibility 
of  tepid  or  lukewarm  Protestants,  who 
regard  the  Pope,  here  alluded  to  by  the 
apostle,  as  a  slight  offender — if  any  of- 
fender at  all — and  Popery  as  a  very 
trivial  offense ! 

That  St.  Paul  does,  in  this  passage, 
refer  to  the  Pope  of  Rome,  is  an  opinion 
freely  expressed  by  most  Protestant  com- 
mentators on  this  and  other  similar  passa- 
ges of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  Bishop 
Newton ^in  his  dissertations  on  the  proph- 
7 


[96  ] 

ecies,  makes  this  application  of  the  pas- 
sage, and  informs  his  readers  that  when 
the  Pope  is  inducted  into  his  office,  a  part 
of  the  service  is,  that  he  is  seated  in  his 
chair,  and  the  chair  is  then  taken  np  by 
the  cardinals  and  placed  upon  the  high 
altar  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  or  wherever 
he  is  so  installed,  and  the  cardinals  fall 
down  and  adore  him,  or  do  him  homage, 
as  to  Christ  himself. 

The  altar,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  in  the 
Romish  Church,  is  considered  the  most 
holy  place,  being  the  resting-place  of 
the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  Placing  the  Pope,  then,  in  this 
position,  and  offering  homage  to  him, 
falls  little  or  nothing  short  of  the  most 
direct  and  blasphemous  idolatry.  But 
we  are  here  digressing,  in  some  degree, 
from  the  single  point  under  consideration, 
which  is  merely  to  disprove  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  Pope  by  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Primitive  Church,  a  task 
which  we  have,  we  hope,  in  some  gOod 
measure,  already  accomplished;  but  we 


[  97  ] 

must  never  rest  till  we  shall  demolish 
every  part  of  the  edifice ;  for  it  is  not  the 
temple  of  God  against  which  we  wage 
war,  hut  a  temple  of  idols  ! 

The  keys  of  St.  Peter  will  next  em- 
ploy our  attention  for  a  short  time.  We 
have  already  said  something  about  the 
power  of  binding  and  loosing  being  con- 
ferred by  our  Lord,  after  his  resurrection, 
upon  all  the  apostles ;  but  as  the  Church 
of  Home  imputes  great  virtue  and  power 
to  the  keys  of  St.  Peter,  it  may  be  well 
to  pause  for  a  moment,  and  inquire  of  the 
Fathers  what  they  think  of  these  keys, 
and  whether  they  were  given  to  St.  Peter 
alone,  or  confided  alike  to  all  the  apos- 
tles of  Christ. 

Origen  says,  "Are  the  keys  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  given  by  the  Lord  to  Pe- 
ter alone,  and  shall  not  other  of  the 
blessed  ones  receive  them?  But  if  this, 
\ 1  will  give  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,'  be  common,  how  also  are  not 
all  things  common  which  were  spoken  be- 
.fore,  or  are  added  as  spoken  to  Peter?" 


[98] 

(See  Origen  on  Matthew,  16th  chap.)  St. 
Jerome  says,  in  express  words,  that  "all 
the  apostles  did  receive  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven." 

Again  :  Theophilact  says,  "  Although 
it  be  spoken  to  Peter  alone,  I  will  give 
thee,"  etc.,  "yet  is  given  to  all  the  apos- 
tles." "  All  we  bishops,"  says  St.  Am- 
brose, Bishop  of  Milan,  "have,  in  St. 
Peter,  received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven." 

Whatever  meaning  may  be  attached  to 
the  gift  of  the  keys  promised  by  our  Lord 
to  Peter,  or  whatever  powers  may  have 
been  conferred  on  that  apostle  by  their 
possession,  one  thing  at  least  is  certain; 
namely,  that  the  bishops  of  the  Primi- 
tive Church  did  all  lay  claim  to  them  in 
common  with  Peter,  who  only  preceded 
them  in  this,  as  in  that  primacy  of  honor 
conferred  on  him  by  his  Master  as  a  per- 
sonal reward  for  his  confession  of  Christ, 
and  indeed  made  a  part  of  the  privileges 
connected  with  that  grant,  by  which,  as- 
noticed  in  the  former  part  of  this  little 


[99] 

work,  St.  Peter  had  the  honor  of  first 
opening  the  door  to  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  in  the 
family  of  Cornelius. 

We  shall  in  the  next  place  notice,  very 
briefly,  the  argument  which  Roman  Cath- 
olics attempt  to  raise  in  favor  of  the  su- 
premacy, from  our  Lord's  discourse  to 
Peter  about  feeding  his  sheep  and  lambs. 
Really  it  is  weak  in  the  extreme  to  have 
recourse  to  such  puerile  methods  as  this, 
with  a  view  of  defending  their  claim  of 
supremacy  for  Peter ;  for,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  keys,  all  the  bishops  and  pastors 
of  the  primitive  Church  will  lay  claim  to 
this  prerogative  also,  and  if  faithfully  and 
diligently  performed,  it  can  not  be  re- 
garded by  any  one  in  the  ministry  in  the 
light  of  a  sinecure. 

To  instruct  and  take  charge  of  the 
flock  of  Christ,  is  the  duty  of  every  grade 
of  teachers  and  ministers  in  the  Church, 
and  can  not  be  peculiar  to  prelates  or 
bishops,  as  they  are  generally  called,  but 
is  common  to  all  of  «very  order,  and  in 


[100] 

every  age,  the  world  over.  Hence,  Bar- 
row very  justly  observes,  that  "from  in- 
definite words  a  definite  conclusion  may 
not  be  inferred."  Christ  sent  all  his  apos- 
tles, the  seventy,  and  every  other  class  of 
preachers  and  teachers  in  his  Church,  for 
the  express  purpose  of  feeding  his  sheep ; 
and  in  this  view  of  the  subject  the  Fa- 
thers also  concur.  "All  of  them  were 
shepherds,"  saith  St.  Cyprian.  St.  Chry- 
sostom  calls  John  "a  pillar  of  the 
Churches  over  the  world." 

Much  more,  of  a  similar  character, 
on  the  subject  of  feeding  the  sheep, 
might  be  gathered  from  the  Fathers,  go- 
ing to  show  that  Peter  enjoyed  no  pecu- 
liar distinction  whatever  from  this  quar- 
ter, as  he  himself  bears  witness,  but 
shared  the  work  with  all  other  ministers 
of  the  Gospel.  "  The  elders,"  or  presby- 
ters, "  who  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who 
am  also  an  elder ;"  and  St.  Paul,  in  sub- 
stance, uses  the  same  kind  of  exhortation, 
in  nearly  the  same  language,  in  his  ad- 
dress to   the   elders,  or  bishops,  of  the 


[  ioi  ] 

Church  of  Ephesus,  as  we  read  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles :  "  Take  heed,  there- 
fore, unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the 
flocks  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
hath  made  you  overseers,  to  feed  the 
Church  of  God  which  he  hath  purchased 
with  his  own  blood." 

Was  Peter  evee  at  Rome? 

Notwithstanding  the  Romish  Church 
so  confidently  claims  St.  Peter  for  their 
first  Pope,  yet,  after  all,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  ever  he  was  in  that  city. 
Many  are  of  opinion  that  he  never  was ; 
and  although  Barrow  does  not  attempt  to 
settle  the  point  one  way  or  the  other,  yet 
he  says  "that  it  is  hard  to  assign  the 
time  when  he  was  at  Rome,  and  that  at 
least  he  could  never  have  resided  there 
for  any  considerable  length  of  time." 
He  adds,  "  The  time  which  old  tradition 
assigneth  of  his  going  to  Rome,  is  rejected 
by  divers  learned  men  even  of  the  Roman 
party."    (See  Barrow,  p.  209.)    Barrow 


[102  ] 

continues  thus,  to  quote  St.  Chrysostom, 
"The  offices  of  an  apostle  and  of  a 
bishop  are  not  in  their  nature  well  con- 
sistent ;  for  the  apostleship  is  mi  extraor- 
dinary office,  charged  with  instruction 
and  government  of  the  whole  world." 
(See  Chrysostom,  Tom.  8,  p.  115.) 

Episcopacy,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
same  Father  tells  us,  requires  that  the 
individual  who  is  clothed  with  this  office 
should  remain  in  one  place,  "  Bishops  be- 
ing pastors  who  do  sit  and  are  employed 
in  one  place."  Cardinal  Barronius  cor- 
roborates this  testimony  of  St.  Chrysos- 
tom nearly  in  the  same  words :  "  It  was 
his  office,  [that  of  Peter  considered  as 
an  apostle,]  not  to  stay  in  one  place, 
but,  as  much  as  it  was  possible  for  one 
man,  to  travel  over  the  whole  world,  and 
to  bring  those  who  did  not  yet  believe  to 
the  faith." 

The  following  extract  from  Faber's  Dif- 
ficulties of  Homanism,  since  it  has  a 
direct  application  to  the  point  under  con- 
sideration, and  fills  up  a  gap  in  ecclesias- 


[103] 

tical  history,  reaching  down  through  two 
or  three  intermediate  links,  Polycarp, 
Ignatius,  and  Irengeus,  to  the  time  of  the 
early  ecclesiastical  historian,  Eusebius, 
shall  be  here  inserted : 

"  Now,  the  position  that  Peter  was  the 
first  bishop  of  Rome,  rests  not  even  upon 
the  shadow  of  a  foilndation  !  All  that 
we  know  respecting  the  early  history  of 
the  Roman  See,  is  derived  ultimately 
from  Irengeus,  who  flourished  in  the  sec- 
ond century ;  for  Eusebius  professedly 
gives  the  whole  on  the  authority  of  Ire- 
ngeus. Does  Irengeus,  then,  inform  us 
that  Peter  was  the  first  bishop  of  Rome, 
and  that  he  handed  down  his  divine  pre- 
rogative— whatever  it  might  be — to  his 
successor  in  that  paramount  diocese? 
Certainly  we  receive  no  such  information 
from  that  ancient  Father ;  and  if  we  re- 
ceive it  not  from  him,  I  know  not  from 
what  other  authentic  source  we  can 
learn  it. 

"  According  to  Irengeus,  the  two  most 
glorious  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  were 


[  104  ] 

cofounders  of  the  Church  of  Rome;  and 
he  informs  us,  that  when  they  had  thus 
jointly  founded  that  Church,  the y  jointly 
delivered  the  Episcopate  of  it  to  Linus. 
"With  respect  to  either  of  the  two  co- 
founders  ever  having  been  himself  bishop" 
of  Rome,  Irenseus  is  totally  silent"  He 
simply  states  that  Peter  and  Paul,  by 
their  joint  authority,  founded  the  Church 
of  Rome ;  and  he  adds,  that  when  they 
had  so  founded  it,  they  forthwith,  still  by 
their  joint  authority,  delivered  the  Epis- 
copate of  it  to  Linus. 

"  Such,"  continues  Mr.  Faber,  "  is  the 
narrative  of  Irenseus ;  I  see  not  what  we 
can  learn  from  it,  save  that  Linus  was  the 
first  bishop  of  Rome,  and,  consequently, 
that  neither  of  the  two  cofounders  of  that 
Church  ever  presided  over  it  in  the  capac- 
ity of  a  diocesan  bishop."  Therefore,  the 
Pope  is  not  even  the  successor  of  St.  Pe- 
ter in  the  Episcopate  of  Rome,  much 
less  the  supreme  pastor  of  the  Christian 
Church,  so  far  as  any  authentic  record  of 
the  Church  is  calculated  to  inform  us ;  but 


[105  ] 

what  history  has  left  undone,  apostolic 
tradition,  or  a  miraculous  vision  or  reve- 
lation to  some  saint,  can  easily  supply; 
for  the  Church  of  Home  has  great  skill 
and  long  practice  in  this  line  of  business : 
these  expedients  have  shed  much  light,  if 
light  it  can  be  called,  on  many  a  doubtful 
fact,  and  many  an  obscure  doctrine  of 
this  Church.  There  is  an  old  heathen 
saying,  that  a  god  should  never  be  intro- 
duced unless  his  presence  should  be  abso- 
lutely required ;  the  heathen  poets  knew 
when  to  introduce  their  pretended  gods, 
and  the  Church  of  Home  knows  equally 
well  when  to  introduce  her  pretended 
miracles — when  they  can  be  brought  to 
the  best  market,  and  turned  to  the  best 
account. 

What  powers  and  prerogatives  did  the 
primitive  bishops  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
claim  and  exercise?  And  first  Clement, 
the  fellow-laborer  of  St.  Paul,  and  men- 
tioned by  that  apostle  in  one  of  his  epis- 
tles, and  we  miglit  add  generally  regarded 
as  the  third  Bishop  of  Rome,  makes  use 


[  106] 

of  the  following  language,  in  one  of  his 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians  : 

"The  apostles  tave  preached  to  us  from 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  Jesus  Christ  from 
God :  Christ,  therefore,  was  sent  by  God ; 
the  apostles  by  Christ.  So  both  their  of- 
fices were  orderly  fulfilled  according  to 
the  will  of  God.  For  having  received 
their  command,  and  being  fully  assured 
by  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  being  convinced  by  the  word 
of  God,  and  the  evidence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  they  went  abroad  publishing  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand.  Thus 
preaching  through  countries  and  cities, 
and  proving  by  the  spirit  the  first-fruits 
of  their  conversions,  they  appointed  out 
of  them  bishops  and  ministers  over  such 
as  should  afterward  believe" 

But  in  this  particular  account  of  the 
apostolic  mode  of  organizing  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  Clement  does  not  say  a  sin- 
gle word  of  Peter  having  any  kind  of 
supremacy  over  the  other  ministers,  or 
what  powers  he  himself  exercised  as  his 


[  107  ] 

successor  at  Rome — not  a  hint  of  his  su- 
premacy as  chief  pastor  of  the  Church. 
Strange,  indeed,  that  Clement  should 
say  nothing  of  Peter,  or  of  his  own  suc- 
cession to  the  supremacy  of  that  apostle 
in  the  Episcopate  of  Rome !  Strange  all 
these  omissions,  on  the  Roman  Catholic 
view  of  the  subject,  but  perfectly  clear 
on  the  Protestant  view  of  the  case ;  for 
from  Clement,  though  writing  to  the  Co- 
rinthians about  "  the  common  salvation," 
and  the  method  adopted  by  the  apostles 
in  planting  the  Gospel  in  different  parts 
of  the  world,  without  pretending  to  exer- 
cise any  pastoral  authority  beyond  the 
proper  limits  of  his  own  field  of  labor 
and  supervision — much  less  a  general  or 
universal  supervision  over  the  whole 
world,  as  claimed  by  the  bishops  of 
Rome  of  the  present  time — no  such  .in- 
formation can  be  expected ;  but  it  is, 
nevertheless,  very  unfortunate  for  the 
cause  of  Popery  that  such  information 
can  not  be  obtained  from  Clement;  for, 
as   he  was   personally   acquainted  with 


[  108  ] 

Paul,  it  is  most  probable  that  he  knew 
Peter  also,  or  at  least  must  have  been 
most  familiarly  acquainted  with  the  pre- 
rogatives and  powers  of  that  apostle,  and 
yet  he  is  entirely  silent  in  regard  to  his 
supremacy,  infallibility,  Vicarship,  and 
all  his  other  titles  and  immunities,  as  the 
prince  of  the  apostles  and  chief  governor 
of  the  Church.  This  very  silence  of  Clem- 
ent speaks  volumes  in  favor  of  that  per- 
fect equality  of  official  rank,  which  Jesus 
Christ  established  among  his  apostles, 
and  which  is  convincingly  confirmed  by 
so  many  Fathers  subsequent  to  Clement, 
as  we  have  already  seen. 

The  Papal  claim  cf  supremacy  was 
strenuously  opposed  by  the  Fathers,  when 
first  it  began  to  be  agitated  in  the  primi- 
tive Church.  Passing  over  some  few 
centuries,  we  find  Gregory  the  Great  ut- 
terly repudiating  the  notion  of  a  uni- 
versal bishop,  in  the  following  strong 
language : 

"Ego  Jidenter  dico,  quod  quisquis  se  uni: 

VERSALEM    SACERDOTEM    VOCAT,    Vel    VOCari 


[  109  ] 

desiderat,  in  elatione  sua,  Antichristus 
pr^currit."  (Gregore  Mag.  Epis.,  Lib. 
6,  E.  30.) 

I  confidently  say,  that  whoever  calls 
himself  universal  bishop,  or  desires  to 
be  so  called,  from  motives  of  ambition, 
is  the  forerunner  of  antichrist.  (Greg- 
ory the  Great,  Book  6,  E.  30.) 

And  at  an  earlier  period  than  that  of 
Gregory,  in  the  time  of  Cyprian,  Bishop 
of  Carthage,  Firmillian  uses  still  stronger, 
though  less  polite  language,  in  reference 
to  Stephen,  then  Bishop  of  Rome,  for 
putting  forth  a  sort  of  feeler,  in  the  direc- 
tion  Of  SUPREMACY   and   SUCCESSORSHIP   TO 

Peter!  He  calls  Stephen,  for  this  pre- 
sumption, "  A  second  Judas,  an  arro- 
gant AND  PRESUMPTUOUS,  AND  MANTFEST 
AND   NOTORIOUS   FOOl!" 

Let  any  of  our  illustrious  bishops 
and  archbishops  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  of  the  present  age,  use  such  lan- 
guage in  regard  to  his  present  Holiness, 
Pius  IX,  and  they  would  soon  receive  a 
citation  to  repair  to  Rome,  to  give  an 


[  no  ] 

account  of  themselves;  and  if,  after  the 
most  humble  acknowledgments,  they 
should  return  with  their  miters  and 
golden  crosses,  they  would  have  great 
reason  to  rejoice ! 

Is  it  possible  that  Firmillian  could 
have  used  such  language  toward  Ste- 
phen, Bishop  of  Kome,  if  the  supremacy 
really  had  belonged  to  him,  by  virtue 
of  a  commission  derived  from  Christ — 
a  commission  as  clear  and  tangible  in  all 
its  details  as  that  which  made  him  bishop 
of  Rome  ?  Impossible  !  For  if  the  title 
of  Stephen  to  the  Popedom  had  been 
thus  clear  and  indisputable,  the  contu- 
mely and  opprobrium  thus  heaped  on  Ste- 
phen by  Firmillian,  would  have  been  a 
direct  insult  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  con- 
ferred this  supremacy  on  Peter,  from 
whom,  through  a  few  intermediate  links, 
Stephen  had  received  it." 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  from  this  lan- 
guage, that  in  the  judgment  of  Firmil- 
lian,  and  the  belief  of  the  Church  in  his 
time,  Christ  never  conferred   any  such 


[Ill  ] 

supremacy  on  Peter,  and  that  to  lay- 
claim  to  it  on  that  plea,  was  presumption, 
and  arrogance,  and  notorious  folly  in 
Stephen,  who,  for  so  doing,  deserved  to 
be  regarded  as  a  notorious  fool. 

And  this  language  was  used,  let  it  be 
kept  in  mind,  in  the  middle  of  the  third 
century.  The  very  fact,  therefore,  that 
nothing  of  this  supremacy  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  can  be  found  in  the  writings  of 
Poly  carp,  or  Ignatius,  or  Clement,  or 
Irenaeus,  some  of  whom  were  cotempo- 
rary  with  the  apostles,  should  forever  bar 
out  the  claim  of  the  Pope  of  Rome  to 
supremacy  and  universal  jurisdiction; 
but,  like  some  other  persons  who  have 
not  come  honestly  by  what  they  possess, 
the  Pope  obstinately  holds  on  to  this 
claim,  in  order  to  legalize  his  usurpation  ! 
In  a  word,  he  has  possession — a  very  ma- 
terial point — and  what  he  thus  holds  he 
will  never  relinquish  unless  by  force. 

God  alone,  in  his  own  good  time,  can 
bring  down  the  blasphemous  tyrant  from 
that  proud  eminence  which  he  has  so 
8 


[112] 

long  occupied  in — I  was  about  to  say  the 
Church,  but  as  Archbishop  Tillotson  says, 
"If  it  be  a  branch  of  the  Christian 
Church  at  all,  it  is  doubtless  the  most  cor- 
rupt one  in  the  world."  And  how  will 
God  do  this  ?  How  will  he  destroy  Po- 
pery, which  we  understand  by  "the 
man  of  sin,"  "son  of  perdition,"  "that 
Wicked,"  or  wicked  one,  "  whom  the 
Lord  shall  consume  with  the  spirit  of  his 
mouth,  and  shall  destroy  with  the  bright- 
ness of  his  coming?"  This  is  the  manner 
in  which  his  destruction  is  to  be  effected : 
by  the  Spirit  and  word  of  God ! 

And  here  it  may  not  be  deemed  out  of 
place  to  note,  that  there  is  nothing  more 
dreaded  by  Roman  Catholics  than  the 
Bible :  they  instinctively,  as  it  were, 
shrink  from  it  as  the  instrument  of  their 
destruction ;  and  well  they  may,  for  the 
Holy  Ghost  has  declared  that  the  sword 
which  proceeds  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Lamb,  "  the  word  of  God,"  shall  be  their 
final  destruction ! 

What  encouragement  does  this  consid- 


[113] 

eration  afford  to  Bible  societies,  and  tract 
societies,  and  all  other  appropriate  means 
employed  for  the  diffusion  of  information 
calculated  to  throw  light  on  this  worse 
than  Egyptian  darkness,  by  which  the 
minds  of  such  numbers  are  shrouded  in 
this  country ! 

It  was  by  concession,  voluntary  or  ex- 
torted^ that  the  bishop  of  Rome  obtained 
the  usurped  supremacy  which  he  has  so 
long  exercised  over  the  greater  part  of 
the  world.  Had  he  been  strenuously  op- 
posed from  the  earliest  indications  of  this 
ambitious  and  unholy  propensity,  with, 
that  zeal  which  animated  Gregory  the 
Great,  and  Firmillian,  he  could  never 
have  acquired  such  extent  of  territory, 
or  swayed  his  spiritual  scepter  over  such 
multitudes  of  the  human  race.  It  was  at 
first  by  courteous  concessions  on  the  part 
of  those  who  desired  preferment,  or  other 
favors,  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  en- 
abled to  lord  it  over  God's  heritage ;  and 
it  is  from  motives  of  self-interest,  on  the 
part  of  lukewarm  Protestants  who  seek 


[114  j 

his  political  patronage,  that  he  continues 
to  maintain  his  consequence  in  this  and 
some  other  lands. 

Men  who  would  sell  their  country  for 
wealth,  or  place,  or  power,  may  still  con- 
tinue to  "give  their  kingdoms,"  or  in- 
fluence, "to  the  beast,"  but  all  sincere 
friends  of  their  country  will  use  their  influ- 
ence in  the  opposite  direction.  And  here 
again  deep  and  lasting  gratitude  should 
be  cherished  toward  a  Rice,  an  Elliott, 
a  Hopkins,  a  Murray,  and  a  Breckenridge, 
for  the  fearless  and  able  manner  in  which 
they  have  opposed  this  great  "  enemy  of 
all  righteousness  "  in  this  country ;  and, 
as  a  reward  of  their  labors  in  this  good 
cause,  may  they  enjoy  the  satisfaction  of 
seeing  many  come  out  of  her,  that  they 
may  not  be  partakers  of  her  plagues  1 

"We  might  still  extend  this  discourse, 
by  citations  from  the  Fathers,  couched  in 
such  terms  as  can  leave  no  doubt  in  the 
mind  of  any  reasonable  person,  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  conferred  no  such  dig- 
nity on  Peter  as  that  supremacy  of  spvr 


[115  ] 

itual  jurisdiction  which  ms  pretended 
successors,  the  bishops  of  Kome,  have  so 
long  enjoyed,  but  that  he  constituted  all 
his  apostles  equal  in  official  rank  and 
jpower,  touching  the  ministry  and  govern- 
ment of  the  Church. 

The  higher  dignitaries  of  patriarchs 
and  archbishops,  which  appeared  at  an 
early  period  in  the  primitive  Church,  we 
shall  scarcely  notice,  as  they  do  not  im- 
mediately concern  our  present  argument. 
They  seem  to  have  been,  however,  the 
offspring  of  pride  and  unholy  ambition, 
and  doubtless  gradually  paved  the  way 
for  the  introduction  of  Popery. 

JSTor  shall  we  waste  time  in  noticing 
the  manner  in  which  the  Popes  have 
been  elected — this  having  differed  in 
different  periods  of  the  history  of  the 
Church — for,  whether  elected  by  the  peo- 
ple and  clergy,  as  at  first,  or  appointed 
by  emperors  or  ladies  of  distinction,  or, 
as  in  later  times,  by  cardinals,  is  truly  a 
matter  of  very  little  importance,  since, 
in  any  case,  they  differ  widely  from  the 


[116  ] 

honest  old  fisherman  of  Galilee,  whom 
they  pretend  to  represent. 

"We  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  notice 
the  claim  of  Roman  Catholics  to  infalli- 
bility. Since  they  themselves  can  not 
tell  us  where  it  resides,  surely  they  can 
not  expect  that  we,  fallible  Protestants 
as  we  are,  should  be  able  to  discover  it. 
They  assure  us  they  haveit,  although  they 
have  never  yet  been  able  to  find  it. 
Verily,  instead  of  regarding  a  man  as 
possessing  great  good  sense,  who  should 
tell  us  that  he  knew  that  he  oivned  a  large 
estate,  but  where  situated,  or  hoiv  bounded, 
or  by  virtue  of  what  title  he  held  it,  he 
could  not  tell,  having  never  seen  the 
property  nor  the  title-deed  which  vested 
it  in  him,  surely  we  should  conclude 
such  a  man  to  be  demented,  and,  so  far 
from  being  infallibly  wise,  the  merest 
driveler,  and  a  fit  subject  for  the  lunatic 
asylum.  Yet  such  is  precisely  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  reference 
to  the  attribute  of  infallibility,  of  which 
she  so  loudlv  boasts. 


[  w  ] 

We  hope  we  have  succeeded,  not,  in- 
deed, in  presenting  our  readers  with  a 
faultless  piece  of  composition — for  to  this 
we  make  no  pretension — but,  with  sound 
and  reliable  testimony,  in  disproving  the 
false  and  impudent  claim  set  up  by  the 
corrupt  Church  of  Rome,  for  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  bishop  of  Eome,  which  they 
of  that  Church  so  constantly  press  upon 
Protestants,  as  necessary  to  be  believed 
by  all  enlightened  Christians,  in  order  to 
salvation. 

"We  hope  we  have  abundantly  proved, 
from  the  Xew  Testament,  and  from  the 
Fathers,  that  there  exists  no  true  grounds 
for  this  claim /  that,  like  the  miracles  of 
that  Church,  it  is  false  and  deceptive,  and 
that  the  Pope  of  Eome  is  not  the  Vicar 
of  Christ,  but  the  great  deceiver  of  the 
nations,  and  a  despotic  tyrant  over  the 
most  corrupt  branch  of  the  Christian 
Church. 


